Before I started this class I had never read a detective book but over the space of three weeks I have read three and as the weeks have passed I become more interested in the premise of corruption in American Society and how it influences the dynamics of each book.
The Big Sleep had many characters kill and bribe for money in the book. What makes this significant it that this thought of corruption is happening during a time of great depression in the United States. Thus money is short, is something that is coveted, enjoyed, and respected. This in turn leads many characters to troublesome situations and mirrors the desperation that Americans found themselves throughout this period. What I found interesting about this motif was that Chandler chooses not only to represent a world of money-hungry people, but also chooses to make the books world dark and corrupt because of it. A great example of this would be the attempted killing of Marlow and where Rusty Regan died. This Example in my view is very symbolic. As this is where the Sternwoods made all their money and at one time can be viewed as a beautiful place, which brought them their extravagant house and luxury lifestyle. Yet the killing of one character and the attempt of the other could apply to a degradation of morality and corruption. Therefore everything in the Sternwoods business was not so clean as once believed, so this feels as a ideal place for a murder to take places as the world of the oil fields are dark and corrupt now and the notion of killing in this setting suits the motif of Chandler thought of a dark and corrupt world.
Another great example of the concept of corruption in American society would be in the GWON. Metcalf throughout his era of being a detective bribes people to get the truth out of them or to find out vital information. Whether this is good or bad is hard to say. Nevertheless, what you can say is with the premise of corruption in the book it lead to a turning point in the book and how Metcalf somewhat changed his attitude when he went in the freezer for 6 years. Therefore, the point I am trying to make is that authors who write detective books seem to use corruption as a pathway to many a subplot as it sets the scene of how they want their society to be view and how it can influence the dynamics of their book.
Pranav Shankla
Thursday, July 9, 2009
7/9/09
I thought the ending of GWOM was very clever and mildly surprising. I was not at all expecting Metcalf to get frozen; I figured that he’d find some way out of his problems. The ending seemed like a middle ground between the endings of The Big Sleep and City of Glass. At the end of The Big Sleep everything was wrapped up very nicely, no questions remained but it was a little anticlimactic. The ending of City of Glass was frustrating because all of the questions were left unanswered, the end actually created more answers. I think the end of City of Glass was probably a reaction to neat, tidy endings like The Big Sleep’s. In truth, City of Glass’s ending was more realistic because often in real life questions are left unanswered and things are wrapped up all neat and tidy. However, that type of ending is usually highly unsatisfying. GWOM’s end could be seen as a reaction to the ends of both of the other two books. The case is finally wrapped up and most of the questions posed by the book are answered. But there is still the air of the story continuing beyond the pages of the book. The reader can’t predict the ultimate fate of Metcalf. What will the world be like the next time he is unfrozen? Will there be a place for him? Will he ever even be unfrozen again? GWOM end is like a happy medium between The Big Sleep and City of Glass. I like the possibilities left open for Metcalf. In the Big Sleep the reader can assume that Marlowe continues on in the same way infinitely. In City of Glass Quinn’s fate seems very cloudy and possibly dark. Metcalf’s fate is as unknown as Quinn’s but his future seems somehow more hopeful.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
Redemption?
We have now read 3 novels and watched three movies, and I feel that nearly every one of them has something interesting in common that I wander if it is on purpose or mere coincidence. In “Brick,” The Big Sleep, and gun with occasional music, and maybe Auster a little, the detective, just as we would expect, comes to some big dramatic conclusion of the case by the end of the novel. They get to the end put the pieces all together and surprise someone, maybe even us the reader, with what really happened. The only problem however is that, in every single one of these works someone/ multiple people end up dying before the case is solved; often these deaths occur to the person for whom you’re investigating, i.e. “Brick." Either way, most of these deaths seem preventable in a perfect world.
Maybe that’s the whole point then, maybe it’s not supposed to be perfect, but rather real; a real world. These thoughts have lead me to question whether or not these happenings are a genre thing. Maybe this is noir or this is 20th century detective work. Maybe its art, real world with a dash of metaphor and a pinch satire.
Ahh, or maybe this is the quote, “In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption.” That’s great, here you go; all of the works mentioned above have qualities of redemption in them. All of them let someone die on their watch, but in the end they still managed to solve the case, maybe feel some sort of redemption themselves and definitely give some to someone else. In GWOM Metcalf obtains his own personal redemption when he witnesses Orton’s release and a personal/ redemption for all the lives affected by Phoneblum’s antics when he throws the whole story in his face and then kills Joey before he can harm anyone else. Similar instances can be seen in the Big Sleep and Brick. BUT the question still remains is this the kind of redemption that this quote is talking about? Is this in virtually every work of this genre? And most importantly why redempiton, why is it that redemption is the all mighty power that leads to art in the noir genre?
-Brad
Maybe that’s the whole point then, maybe it’s not supposed to be perfect, but rather real; a real world. These thoughts have lead me to question whether or not these happenings are a genre thing. Maybe this is noir or this is 20th century detective work. Maybe its art, real world with a dash of metaphor and a pinch satire.
Ahh, or maybe this is the quote, “In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption.” That’s great, here you go; all of the works mentioned above have qualities of redemption in them. All of them let someone die on their watch, but in the end they still managed to solve the case, maybe feel some sort of redemption themselves and definitely give some to someone else. In GWOM Metcalf obtains his own personal redemption when he witnesses Orton’s release and a personal/ redemption for all the lives affected by Phoneblum’s antics when he throws the whole story in his face and then kills Joey before he can harm anyone else. Similar instances can be seen in the Big Sleep and Brick. BUT the question still remains is this the kind of redemption that this quote is talking about? Is this in virtually every work of this genre? And most importantly why redempiton, why is it that redemption is the all mighty power that leads to art in the noir genre?
-Brad
redemption
Bri Fowle
So we have talked about this common theme of redemption in the books and movies that we have read/watched. In some of them there is a clear sense of redemption, and in some of the others, they are not nearly so clear. In works such as The Big Sleep and Brick, the ending is clear and you know exactly what happened and why it happened. In works like City of Glass, the ending seems to be disappointing and confusing because none of your questions were answered. Most people would argue that it was not redemptive at all. But what if we look at the big picture of the book, outside of the characters? What if the book itself is redemptive somehow because he made art out of a book that went nowhere and seemingly had no point? Or maybe City of Glass had a higher literary meaning that we shouldn’t concentrate on the characters themselves but on the story. It’s hard to see the redemptive qualities in that book, but I feel that if we look close enough we can come up with something.
Gun, With Occasional Music was a lot more satisfying than City of Glass, to be sure, but it definitely has deeper meanings. Every small detail in that book was put there for a reason.
Another common theme that I see throughout the books is that at the end, the detective has somehow ruined himself or his reputation somehow and just doesn’t seem to care anymore. He finds what he was looking for (or in Quinn’s case, goes as far as he possibly can and does everything that he can, eventually going crazy in the end), and then he is finally satisfied. You see this especially with Quinn, where he doesn’t care what happens to himself at the end, eventually wasting away and disappearing. Also, Metcalf at the end solves the mystery, takes care of Joey and then is finally satisfied, feeling like he is finally finished everything he needs to. He doesn’t even care about the world he lives in now and doesn’t feel a part of it anymore so he doesn’t even hesitate to turn himself in. It doesn’t make sense to run from the Office because he doesn’t even like the world anymore.
So we have talked about this common theme of redemption in the books and movies that we have read/watched. In some of them there is a clear sense of redemption, and in some of the others, they are not nearly so clear. In works such as The Big Sleep and Brick, the ending is clear and you know exactly what happened and why it happened. In works like City of Glass, the ending seems to be disappointing and confusing because none of your questions were answered. Most people would argue that it was not redemptive at all. But what if we look at the big picture of the book, outside of the characters? What if the book itself is redemptive somehow because he made art out of a book that went nowhere and seemingly had no point? Or maybe City of Glass had a higher literary meaning that we shouldn’t concentrate on the characters themselves but on the story. It’s hard to see the redemptive qualities in that book, but I feel that if we look close enough we can come up with something.
Gun, With Occasional Music was a lot more satisfying than City of Glass, to be sure, but it definitely has deeper meanings. Every small detail in that book was put there for a reason.
Another common theme that I see throughout the books is that at the end, the detective has somehow ruined himself or his reputation somehow and just doesn’t seem to care anymore. He finds what he was looking for (or in Quinn’s case, goes as far as he possibly can and does everything that he can, eventually going crazy in the end), and then he is finally satisfied. You see this especially with Quinn, where he doesn’t care what happens to himself at the end, eventually wasting away and disappearing. Also, Metcalf at the end solves the mystery, takes care of Joey and then is finally satisfied, feeling like he is finally finished everything he needs to. He doesn’t even care about the world he lives in now and doesn’t feel a part of it anymore so he doesn’t even hesitate to turn himself in. It doesn’t make sense to run from the Office because he doesn’t even like the world anymore.
the freezer
Prison is a punishment. You’re sentenced to however long is decided for you, and you sit in a concrete cell for years, forced to think about your wrongdoings. This is why prison is dreaded by all. It’s solitary confinement, crappy food, forced labor, and most of all, boredom. What’s the worst about prison is you have to sit there through it all. Your communication with the outside world is extremely limited, your loved ones are dearly missed, and you know that you’re missing out on life. Ex-cons come out of prison different men, broken men, mostly with changed attitudes or at least some painful memories of a fellow inmate’s aggression.
The freezer is nothing like this. Metcalf was put in the freezer for his unwillingness to drop the Stanhunt murder case. He spent 6 years in the freezer, for which all of this he has no recollection. He thaws out, checks out his surroundings, and figures he’s going in because of his zero recollection of the whole entire punishment.. His memory is blank for 6 years. He experiences zero consciousness for 6 whole years. He emerges with the case fresh on his brain, like the 6 years never even occurred. This, to me, defeats the purpose of prison. There is hardly any punishment served. It’s a long sleep. The central government dishes out such mild punishment, it’s baffling.
bryce rubin
the freezer
Prison is a punishment. You’re sentenced to however long is decided for you, and you sit in a concrete cell for years, forced to think about your wrongdoings. This is why prison is dreaded by all. It’s solitary confinement, crappy food, forced labor, and most of all, boredom. What’s the worst about prison is you have to sit there through it all. Your communication with the outside world is extremely limited, your loved ones are dearly missed, and you know that you’re missing out on life. Ex-cons come out of prison different men, broken men, mostly with changed attitudes or at least some painful memories of a fellow inmate’s aggression.
The freezer is nothing like this. Metcalf was put in the freezer for his unwillingness to drop the Stanhunt murder case. He spent 6 years in the freezer, for which all of this he has no recollection. He thaws out, checks out his surroundings, and figures he’s going in because of his zero recollection of the whole entire punishment.. His memory is blank for 6 years. He experiences zero consciousness for 6 whole years. He emerges with the case fresh on his brain, like the 6 years never even occurred. This, to me, defeats the purpose of prison. There is hardly any punishment served. It’s a long sleep. The central government dishes out such mild punishment, it’s baffling.
bryce rubin
GWOM Finale
I was very pleased with the ending of this novel. It brought everything together and it started reminding me more and more of City of Glass. City of Glass didn't have any of the futuristic elements that Gun, with Occasional Music had. However, with the Six year gap in this novel it reminded of the long stake out that took place in City of Glass. The stake out was a little bit different in the sense that we really had no idea what was going on and it all seemed useless. Because everything came together at the end and it gave us the reader a sense of completion it reminded me a lot of The Big Sleep. With Metcalf getting frozen again I felt like it made a lot of sense. It also almost seemed to remind me of Blade Runner. I felt both of the main characters were similar in the sense that once they were done with their cases they just wanted to get away from it all as fast as possible.
The only problem I saw with this book was I felt like it might have been drawn out a little bit. I thought it went on a little longer than it needed to. I understand the detective novel theme and that there is supposed to be a lot of information, however, with this novel it seemed to me that they tried to give us a lot more information and it kind of confused us a little. That all said I was very pleased with this novel and it was well written.
The only problem I saw with this book was I felt like it might have been drawn out a little bit. I thought it went on a little longer than it needed to. I understand the detective novel theme and that there is supposed to be a lot of information, however, with this novel it seemed to me that they tried to give us a lot more information and it kind of confused us a little. That all said I was very pleased with this novel and it was well written.
GWOM
I like how everything ties together in the end of the book. Lethem included a heavy influence of drugs throughout the book to lead up to why Stanhunt was murdered and why the government regulated free drugs in the first place. The Office wanted to control the people by making them essentially into hollowed out zombies that follow all the ridiculous rules they impose upon the public. It says a lot about Metcalf that he doesnt do the time-released forgettol despite his heavy make use thoughout the book. His character will never conform to what the Office wants, which is why he goes back into the freezer - to hopefully come back in a time that is accepting of him. The six year hiatus in the book made it all the more interesting to me. It reminded me of City of Glass when Quinn stakes out for months with no knowledge of the changes that took place in the world while he was living in his own little world. It is a tragic end for both characters. The ending of GWOM makes me think it is a parallel to what our world is like to those who do not conform. Not necessarily government punishments, but how society treats those who do not conform to the social norm.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
7/8/09
The thing I find most intriguing about this book is the use of animals. Gun, With Occasional Music has the moral core of Raymond Chandler in the sense of detective noir, but at the same time it is a science fiction novel as well. I enjoy this type of science fiction because when reading, you don’t really quite recognize it and at times I find that I have to remind myself. It’s subtle and not in your face; like having space ships and aliens blowing up Earth. The balance between the two is something that I have never read before and it is quite interesting to me personally. Also, the use of animals as evolutionary therapy in contrast to humans in regards to the real world is quite interesting as well. As a side note; some people believe that each human has an animal spirit and I like how this kind of contrasts that idea in a way; to relate a specific animal to your human personality. To see the evolution of animals as they relate to humans makes me think of that theory in a sense. To see animals act like an average citizen shows the advanced evolution in regards to a science fiction essence but at the same time makes me relate back to cartoons I watched as a child. I find it hard not to look at these characters in a childlike way at times, just because of characters like Garfield and Winnie the Pooh. And also having advanced infants called babyheads as characters doesn’t help that feeling at all. But I did think it was really interesting to see a character as an ape. It is the closest species to man and believed that humans evolved from them. In contrast to this book it’s almost like as a human, we see an ape as the most elite in comparison to all other animals because they are so close to our species. To me, I unintentionally view this book as childlike at times but at the same time it is intellectually stimulating and it really opens the mind in a very creative way almost like a viewpoint of an advanced child.
-Erin L.
-Erin L.
7/8/9
Today in class we discussed why Metcalf is continuing on with the case. Whether it was for his own desire or what. One reason was ‘an old fashioned scale of outrage’. This really is something that is completely believable to me. Since the characters in the book are completely numbed out and need to take drugs to feel, I think that this case is actually giving our narrator a feeling, an ‘old fashioned’ feeling. Meaning he does not have to take any drugs to feel as he does, he just does. This is thrilling for him, it doesn’t matter that the feeling is outrage, it is a legitimate feeling. Than he continues on to say that the world needs fixed, he needs to be fixed. This really has nothing to do with the case it has to do with the lack of genuine feelings in the world. This is why he went to the drug store and paid off the keeper to tell him the drug mixes that they had been getting.
I guess my only question is why does Phoneblum not feel that it is necessary to take the drugs. From what I can remember he is the first man that has really denied the drugs all together, and says that he does not go near them. (except to sell them, of course) Perhaps, it is because he gets his thrills in other ways...
Monica
I guess my only question is why does Phoneblum not feel that it is necessary to take the drugs. From what I can remember he is the first man that has really denied the drugs all together, and says that he does not go near them. (except to sell them, of course) Perhaps, it is because he gets his thrills in other ways...
Monica
Serface the Ape (w/ correction)
Today we met another private eye named Walter Serface. Mr. Serface is a special kind of being, in that he is an evolved ape. It was this fact that made me wonder if, again, there was some significant meaning to Mr. Serface having the name service and being and evolved ape. Also I wonder if this relationship will continue to be or prove to be a significant one through the end of Lethem’s novel.
I began to wonder what qualities or characteristics a typical ape may have that would lend to being a successful or quality private eye. An ape is relatively quick, definitely strong; but neither of these things seems to be needed all too much to be a quality detective. However in writing this, it just dawned on me, that at some point during Metcalf and Walter’s conversation, Walter said that he was hired by either Stanhunt or Phoneblum, as the muscle. This makes more sense; while I do not believe this partnership worked out to well, as Serface was evidently shot by Phoneblum’s kangaroo. However this would in theory be the best purpose for Surface to serve; one of muscle and strength, maybe he was best at intimidating information out of people, allowing him to do his job well.
The third aspect of the introduction of this Walter Surfacece character was: does his name have any significance? Last night I wrote about the possibility of the names in Lethem’s novel having some significant meaning. The same notion can be applied to Walter Services name. Specifically Service; Metcalf learns quite a bit about Celeste; about her alleged affair at the same hotel as Mr. Stanhunts murder, as well a bit of further information that helps Metcalf to better understand Phoneblum. In obtaining this information from Service, one could say that he did a “service” for Metcalf; he helped him to stay alive in this case, to actually have something good to go on. Metcalf even says to him that he owes him one. So I believe it will be interesting to see if this brief meeting of Walter will be the only or if his “services” are needed down the road and what this character means to the overall work.
***When writing my post I was not at home or near my book so I may have been a little mistaken as to what the apes name was as I worked from memory. However with that said, I still believe that the first two paragraphs are relevant and legititmate question/ queries. And a far as his name goes, may it still is significant; maybe Walter is more important character or has some bigger significance than what we see on the surface. Maybe on the surface he is a big strong ape, maybe he is not all that strong, maybe it means nothing at all. I guess we'll see.
-Brad
I began to wonder what qualities or characteristics a typical ape may have that would lend to being a successful or quality private eye. An ape is relatively quick, definitely strong; but neither of these things seems to be needed all too much to be a quality detective. However in writing this, it just dawned on me, that at some point during Metcalf and Walter’s conversation, Walter said that he was hired by either Stanhunt or Phoneblum, as the muscle. This makes more sense; while I do not believe this partnership worked out to well, as Serface was evidently shot by Phoneblum’s kangaroo. However this would in theory be the best purpose for Surface to serve; one of muscle and strength, maybe he was best at intimidating information out of people, allowing him to do his job well.
The third aspect of the introduction of this Walter Surfacece character was: does his name have any significance? Last night I wrote about the possibility of the names in Lethem’s novel having some significant meaning. The same notion can be applied to Walter Services name. Specifically Service; Metcalf learns quite a bit about Celeste; about her alleged affair at the same hotel as Mr. Stanhunts murder, as well a bit of further information that helps Metcalf to better understand Phoneblum. In obtaining this information from Service, one could say that he did a “service” for Metcalf; he helped him to stay alive in this case, to actually have something good to go on. Metcalf even says to him that he owes him one. So I believe it will be interesting to see if this brief meeting of Walter will be the only or if his “services” are needed down the road and what this character means to the overall work.
***When writing my post I was not at home or near my book so I may have been a little mistaken as to what the apes name was as I worked from memory. However with that said, I still believe that the first two paragraphs are relevant and legititmate question/ queries. And a far as his name goes, may it still is significant; maybe Walter is more important character or has some bigger significance than what we see on the surface. Maybe on the surface he is a big strong ape, maybe he is not all that strong, maybe it means nothing at all. I guess we'll see.
-Brad
Today in class we talked about the relevance of satire. I think that the concept of metaphor ties in closely with the development of satire as well. In Gun, With Occasional Music there is more than a little metaphor to be had. The trick is deciphering it. Interpretations can take many cunning forms and it is, therefore, a taxing endeavor to scrutinize every level of satirical writing. But we must take the labors to do this, for this is the epitome of skill and meaning for the writer. So, I’m going to try to decode two metaphors that are relevant to the reading we did today.
In chapter 21 Metcalf goes to meet a fellow PI named Walter Surface. The reader is lead to believe that Surface is human, but when Metcalf arrives he is surprised as we are to find that Surface is actually an evolved ape. Why is it that the only other PI that appears in the novel is an ape? I think that Lethem is commenting on the archetype of the PI. The PI of legend is gruff, brute, and as simple as his world will allow him to be; like an ape.
Alright, now I want to deal with this issue of Metcalf’s shortcomings (I intended that pun). At first, I thought that Metcalf’s girl just ran away with his penis. But when you read into it further you realize that he still has his own private dick (I intended that one too). His nerve endings are just reversed. I mean he seems to be able to get laid just fine (chapter 27). So, here’s what I think is going on. I think that Lethem is commenting on the tendency of the traditional PI to pass on ass that no one else would. Chandler’s PI has a spider-sense for detecting honey-traps and knowing when to shake off a woman’s advances. Yeah right folks. I don’t care who you are, if a girl throws herself at you, or on top of you, you’re not going to throw her back off. You may have second thoughts, but I think it would be wrong to suggest that the majority of us wouldn't deal with the moral implications after the fact. Lethem is heavily satirizing this aspect of the PI archetype.
-Jason
In chapter 21 Metcalf goes to meet a fellow PI named Walter Surface. The reader is lead to believe that Surface is human, but when Metcalf arrives he is surprised as we are to find that Surface is actually an evolved ape. Why is it that the only other PI that appears in the novel is an ape? I think that Lethem is commenting on the archetype of the PI. The PI of legend is gruff, brute, and as simple as his world will allow him to be; like an ape.
Alright, now I want to deal with this issue of Metcalf’s shortcomings (I intended that pun). At first, I thought that Metcalf’s girl just ran away with his penis. But when you read into it further you realize that he still has his own private dick (I intended that one too). His nerve endings are just reversed. I mean he seems to be able to get laid just fine (chapter 27). So, here’s what I think is going on. I think that Lethem is commenting on the tendency of the traditional PI to pass on ass that no one else would. Chandler’s PI has a spider-sense for detecting honey-traps and knowing when to shake off a woman’s advances. Yeah right folks. I don’t care who you are, if a girl throws herself at you, or on top of you, you’re not going to throw her back off. You may have second thoughts, but I think it would be wrong to suggest that the majority of us wouldn't deal with the moral implications after the fact. Lethem is heavily satirizing this aspect of the PI archetype.
-Jason
7/8/09
I can see GWOM as a reaction to works like City of Glass. I think GWOM really fits in with what Barth was talking about in the Literature of Exhaustion. Lethem’s form is very similar to Chandler’s, as is his main character but he is not doing the same thing as Chandler. He realizes that using the exact same form of detective story as Chandler would be, as Lethem put it, embarrassing. He knows that the detective/hero of Chandler’s is out of place in a modern context, it’s reflected in the fact that Metcalf is rapidly becoming obsolete in his own time and place. But that is what makes GWOM original and modern. Although Lethem is using forms that some may consider “exhausted” he is doing so in an ironic, satirical way that makes GWOM new and original. I feel like GWOM is somewhat a reaction to the thought that everything has been done and so nothing can be original; Lethem reacts to that by combining unoriginal forms (aka detective/noir, self-conscious fiction, science fiction/speculative fiction) in a way that manages to both evoke the traditional forms and seem original at the same time.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
Under the influence
This issue of slave labor keeps popping up. Although I have not ruled out the idea of an army of babyhead slaves bunkered up in Pansy Greenleaf’s house, Phoneblum’s proliferation of unfrozen sex slaves seem much more important. This explains Phoneblum’s protection from the office, for he keeps tabs on who is recently frozen and who is suitable for his intended purposes. Gangsters usually deal in drugs or stolen property but this one in particular is dealing in zombie women employed as sex slaves. In a world where the have the technology to evolve animals and give them the ability to walk and read, mind control doesn’t seem that far off. It’s another way of manipulating a race to do as the liberator wishes.
Now that we know Phoneblum and Pansy are such close “friends,” the barracks don’t seem so surprising. Phoneblum manipulates people/things for his livelihood. If it does turn out that Pansy is a nanny, it makes sense that babyheads would live in her house.
I also find it appropriate that an ape would be a detective. They contort their faces in such inquisitive ways. Plus I would think that their close relation to humans would put them in tune with the inner workings of a human’s mind; introspection is important in the line of detective work.
The more I think about it, the more I see reason for the office to hurry to close the case on Angwine. Perhaps they were being influenced by Phoneblum to get him off the grid quickly. He might be planning to use him after he’s been frozen as a slave of some sort, or maybe he just wanted him to close his mouth because he knew so much. I guess we’ll have to find out.
bryce rubin
questions
Bri Fowle
Kornfeld seems to have gravitated in this story from a henchman that does all of the muscle work to the man calling all the shots. I suppose he has always been the guy calling all the shots but I don’t know if Metcalf knew that. I think that he thought that Morgenlander was in charge at first. Anyway, Kornfeld is becoming increasingly suspicious to me. He has eyes everywhere, people are afraid of him, and he seems to be disappearing somewhat as of late. I feel like we should keep an eye on him.
Also, the development between Catherine Teleprompter and Metcalf seems to be kind of sudden. At the beginning of the book, it seemed that she hated Metcalf’s guts, and now here they are, going back to his place for the night. I feel like something might be up. She hasn’t really appeared THAT much in the book, but all of a sudden they are friendly.
I also think that it is interesting how the case on Celeste’s murder is closed but the main suspect that they had for the Stanhunt murder is supposedly locked up. It seems like someone is covering something up for someone.
I suppose I just need to finish the book, because we have all of these facts and everything seems so jumbled up and makes no sense right now. I hope that we will find out all of these answers tomorrow when we finish the book. (Hopefully it’s not like City of Glass, because that would be frustrating)
Kornfeld seems to have gravitated in this story from a henchman that does all of the muscle work to the man calling all the shots. I suppose he has always been the guy calling all the shots but I don’t know if Metcalf knew that. I think that he thought that Morgenlander was in charge at first. Anyway, Kornfeld is becoming increasingly suspicious to me. He has eyes everywhere, people are afraid of him, and he seems to be disappearing somewhat as of late. I feel like we should keep an eye on him.
Also, the development between Catherine Teleprompter and Metcalf seems to be kind of sudden. At the beginning of the book, it seemed that she hated Metcalf’s guts, and now here they are, going back to his place for the night. I feel like something might be up. She hasn’t really appeared THAT much in the book, but all of a sudden they are friendly.
I also think that it is interesting how the case on Celeste’s murder is closed but the main suspect that they had for the Stanhunt murder is supposedly locked up. It seems like someone is covering something up for someone.
I suppose I just need to finish the book, because we have all of these facts and everything seems so jumbled up and makes no sense right now. I hope that we will find out all of these answers tomorrow when we finish the book. (Hopefully it’s not like City of Glass, because that would be frustrating)
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
7/7
For some reason, while reading “Gun, with occasional murder” I can’t help but compare it with “The Big Sleep”. I’m aware that they are pretty different, but I think that the detectives are similar, except for the fact that this one, seems to have a drug issue. Once Metcalf takes his drugs he seems to be calmer, and when he walks into the room with the sheep, I seem to think of it the same as the deaths in “The Big Sleep”. Previously in the novels we have dealt with people who are very, very rich, but in this book I feel like that is not as much of an issue, which is interesting because this is the book with the Utopia. Although, there is a Utopia it is coincidental that a lot of the issues are in fact the same. It seems as though no matter how much control a society has over the public there are still issues, just like in Chinatown how they were controlling the water, there were so many issues with the city still. This has really become quite the communist society. The fact that it’s looked down upon to ask questions, and how it is rude becomes a real issue. If someone has to have a license to ask questions than the society is probably way more dangerous than these people can handle (hence to all of the drug addicts). The drugs are a way for these humans/non humans to escape this world that is so completely fixed they are numbed.
Gun with Occasional Music
Since reading Gun with Occasional Music and watching Bladerunner, I've been thinking about our perceptions of the future. In Bladerunner, it was suggested that the future will hold great technological advances, enough to make a replica of a human. The future in Bladerunner also has pollution, overpopulation and a whole new planet to relocate to. At the rate things are going now, I dont see any of this being impossible (except for the new planet thing and the fact that Bladerunner was supposed to be set in 2019). Are these futuristic themes meant to scare us be eluding to what the earth could be like if we continue living the way we do now? The green movement is an effort to reduce pollution caused by humans. Technology and medicine is advancing every day whether we know it or not. Even architecture is becoming more radical. We have robot vaccuum cleaners, engineers are developing cars that will navigate pretty much on their own, it seems as though every day objects are becoming electronic for our ease. Will this be our downfall?
As far as Gun with Occasional Music, I dont believe any of it would be possible for America, let alone the world. It is too unrealistic and not comparable to how we live today. Although the drugs in the book in some ways remind me of the reasons why people use illegal drugs today: forget a painful memory, repress emotions, to be accepted, some times to just live daily life for an unfortunate few.
Laura Hughes
As far as Gun with Occasional Music, I dont believe any of it would be possible for America, let alone the world. It is too unrealistic and not comparable to how we live today. Although the drugs in the book in some ways remind me of the reasons why people use illegal drugs today: forget a painful memory, repress emotions, to be accepted, some times to just live daily life for an unfortunate few.
Laura Hughes
More Than Just a Name?
It crossed my mind today during class and then while reading this evening, what, if any, is the significance of the names in gun with occasional music. It seems in this novel, as compared to the other works we have studied, that the names may have some significant meaning. I realize that this notion is born out of the fact that the names thought the novel thus far have been quite, abstract, or “wacky.” Leading up to this Lethem, none of the other works have had names that were so out there that they made me think that they alone might actually hold some meaning. Outside of maybe the Pin in “Brick,” as the leader of the drug cartel, or maybe even General Sternwood in The Big Sleep, where the general could represent some implied dignity, honor, authority, and maybe even his wealth. Outside of these examples, I don’t feel that any of these works have had names like Testafer, Pansy, Teleprompter, Morganlander, Kornfled, etc… Every time I here these names, I want to think that they each stand for something bigger than just a name. Teleprompter, that has to represent something, Lethem couldn’t have just thought it would be fun to throw in a few names that sound a little different and potentially stand for something other than a person.
There is once again, the potential that I am digging too far into the wrong direction, but in the chance that Lethem did this on purpose, I would really like to know why. Are these names intended for us to understand each character a little better without getting to know them all that well? Maybe this then would help us to better understand the overall story/ plot. Also, does this add another dimension to the detective genre, a creative one, one that really takes the genre to that true art level? Does creativity like this even lead to or mean art?
Either way, for now, I am convinced that the names in Lethem’s novel have some significant meaning. Again I will wait and see if I keep the ball in the park.
-Brad
There is once again, the potential that I am digging too far into the wrong direction, but in the chance that Lethem did this on purpose, I would really like to know why. Are these names intended for us to understand each character a little better without getting to know them all that well? Maybe this then would help us to better understand the overall story/ plot. Also, does this add another dimension to the detective genre, a creative one, one that really takes the genre to that true art level? Does creativity like this even lead to or mean art?
Either way, for now, I am convinced that the names in Lethem’s novel have some significant meaning. Again I will wait and see if I keep the ball in the park.
-Brad
Drawing Camparisons
After continuing to read Gun, with occasional music, I have drawn a few comparisons to Blade Runner. Beyond the easily noticed fact that both of these works take place in future settings, there are many more comparisons to be made.
The evolved animals and the babyheads are starting to look more and more similar to the replicants. The evolved animals have all been placed within positions of service, and while Metcalf is talking with the architects we get the hunch that there might more similarities there as well. The idea of slave help is brought up by Metcalf and the architect in relation to both the babyheads and the evolved animals. It seems however, that it seems more realistic for us to believe the barracks are set up for babyheads given the dimensions of the quarters that are discussed. However, due to the fact that we don't get a clear answer it is left for speculation what Pansy really has in mind for the living quarters. It seems to be gaining importance in the case however, with the Barry situation and the Kitten being at the house already. I am hoping more will be revealed further along in the work.
Metcalf and Deckard seem to be two characters almost coming from the same mind. Lethem and Scott seem to have the same idea for their "hero" characters. Metcalf and Deckard both seem to be seemingly detached from society and are going through life day to day until they are thrust into a case that engulfs their entire being. Metcalf seems to have resorted to drugs for his sense of being and control or lack of control depending on how you look at it. He uses Regrettol which gives us the insight of an already seemingly broken man. Deckard on the other hand has taken to the retired life and just wants to stay out of everything. He does not want to get tangled up in anything else. Both of these men, however, become attached to their cases once they are on them.
-Brett McAdams-
The evolved animals and the babyheads are starting to look more and more similar to the replicants. The evolved animals have all been placed within positions of service, and while Metcalf is talking with the architects we get the hunch that there might more similarities there as well. The idea of slave help is brought up by Metcalf and the architect in relation to both the babyheads and the evolved animals. It seems however, that it seems more realistic for us to believe the barracks are set up for babyheads given the dimensions of the quarters that are discussed. However, due to the fact that we don't get a clear answer it is left for speculation what Pansy really has in mind for the living quarters. It seems to be gaining importance in the case however, with the Barry situation and the Kitten being at the house already. I am hoping more will be revealed further along in the work.
Metcalf and Deckard seem to be two characters almost coming from the same mind. Lethem and Scott seem to have the same idea for their "hero" characters. Metcalf and Deckard both seem to be seemingly detached from society and are going through life day to day until they are thrust into a case that engulfs their entire being. Metcalf seems to have resorted to drugs for his sense of being and control or lack of control depending on how you look at it. He uses Regrettol which gives us the insight of an already seemingly broken man. Deckard on the other hand has taken to the retired life and just wants to stay out of everything. He does not want to get tangled up in anything else. Both of these men, however, become attached to their cases once they are on them.
-Brett McAdams-
babyrace
Prisoners taken to jail are generally frozen but it was mentioned that they can be unfrozen and subjected to slave labor (sidenote: I would imagine the unfreezing process would do a ton of damage to the insides of a human being, let alone the damage of being frozen at all). Metcalf mentioned a “slave box strapped to his head” and I’m assuming that is some sort of mind control device. When they had mentioned the blue prints found in Pansy’s drawer before the idea was that it was barracks set up for animals, but for what purpose? It seemed like it was staff quarters, or if you want to be crude, slave quarters. It always seemed a little cruel. Evolved animals had taken on the service jobs but once the word “slave” is involved, it seems a little off.
The architect uncovered it all, with his allusion to his ewe preferring to sleep curled up in a ball. Rows of bunkbeds for babyheads, and what need for 18 babyheads is there? A slave race of babies? Is that what they were engineered for? Babies are so small; what could they possible have to offer in the ways of labor? It seems unlikely that Pansy just wanted her son back and that he could invite 17 of his friends to go with him if that would make him happy. That’s a lot of mouths to feed. Something stranger than murder is happening. Part of me thinks Barry has an idea. Pansy has hallowed her head out on blanketrol that I doubt she even remembers her original plan anymore. Perhaps that was Phoneblum’s plan all along.
bryce rubin
genetic design
Bri Fowle
I have been noticing that in both Bladerunner and Gun, with Occasional Music there has been a lot of genetic design. This was probably what a lot of people thought and most likely think now when it comes to the future. Some of it has happened with some clones and stem cell research. The stuff that the film and the book talk about are much more advanced. In Bladerunner, the Replicants are essentially superhumans that were created to do jobs that no one else really wanted to do. They were considered a subclass of humans, much like the babyheads and evolved animals in Gun, with Occasional Music. The evolved animals are based off of the same idea that Bladerunner presented- a subclass of humans made to do jobs that no one else wanted to do. They also are presumably trying to fight for more rights so they are treated more like humans. They also meet with a lot of opposition, especially from the older generation, because, at least in my opinion, they were probably around when animals were just animals, and they have a hard time accepting the fact that things are different. The babyheads seem to be a different class of genetic design. Apparently people don’t like to raise kids anymore so the families put their child through genetic therapy and the child grows up much faster and they are at full maturity when they still look like children (or that’s the description that I get out of the book). So it doesn’t seem like the babyheads are raised to be a subclass, but while they are still children, they are considered by many to be one.
I have been noticing that in both Bladerunner and Gun, with Occasional Music there has been a lot of genetic design. This was probably what a lot of people thought and most likely think now when it comes to the future. Some of it has happened with some clones and stem cell research. The stuff that the film and the book talk about are much more advanced. In Bladerunner, the Replicants are essentially superhumans that were created to do jobs that no one else really wanted to do. They were considered a subclass of humans, much like the babyheads and evolved animals in Gun, with Occasional Music. The evolved animals are based off of the same idea that Bladerunner presented- a subclass of humans made to do jobs that no one else wanted to do. They also are presumably trying to fight for more rights so they are treated more like humans. They also meet with a lot of opposition, especially from the older generation, because, at least in my opinion, they were probably around when animals were just animals, and they have a hard time accepting the fact that things are different. The babyheads seem to be a different class of genetic design. Apparently people don’t like to raise kids anymore so the families put their child through genetic therapy and the child grows up much faster and they are at full maturity when they still look like children (or that’s the description that I get out of the book). So it doesn’t seem like the babyheads are raised to be a subclass, but while they are still children, they are considered by many to be one.
DRUGS
The regular usage of drugs in the book has made me think of the reasoning behind why Lethem is so upfront with the usage of drugs and why he seems it necessary that all characters need to be using some sort of drugs to explain their persona. Before I indulge into my point, the fact that these drugs can be acquired from a store is ludicrous but at the same time explains why so many of the characters are affluent users.
In the instance of Testafer, we find out that he is a regular user of Avoidol that accelerates repression. Lethem may have assigned Testafer with this drug maybe because he wants the reader to think that he is hiding something to the audience and it is on his conscience, so to counter this he takes this drug to forget about a traumatic event in his life, which in the case of the book could be Stanhunt’s death. Secondly, we learn that Stanhunt was a regular user of a modified Forgettol. A number of reasoning could be behind this the simple answer could be that he wants to forgot what’s happening in recent past, which in his case is the divorce of his wife, but then would he not just take regular Forgettol. This leads me to believe that the modification of this drug and his usage of it back up Metcalf’s point that something happened in the past between him, his wife and Pansy and he wants to eradicate this memory. Another thought might be that with this regular consumption of drugs could it not be as simple as Stanhunt overdosed a thought to consider. Finally, Pansy Greenleaf’s persona is interesting the maker seems to believe that she is taking a very high-end drug, which that has been banned. The drugs in his perspective leads a person to complete eradicate their mind and not remind you of anything, not even yourself. This has to mean that she knows something about the whole mystery otherwise why would she try to kill her mind of this thought. To conclude I believe that there is a subplot to this story and it is not just about Stanhunt death. I mean if all three of these characters are taking drugs to repress some sort of thought they must be hiding something and Lethem rendition of all them taking similar drugs is brilliant as it emphasis the mystery of the past of all three characters.
Pranav Shankla
In the instance of Testafer, we find out that he is a regular user of Avoidol that accelerates repression. Lethem may have assigned Testafer with this drug maybe because he wants the reader to think that he is hiding something to the audience and it is on his conscience, so to counter this he takes this drug to forget about a traumatic event in his life, which in the case of the book could be Stanhunt’s death. Secondly, we learn that Stanhunt was a regular user of a modified Forgettol. A number of reasoning could be behind this the simple answer could be that he wants to forgot what’s happening in recent past, which in his case is the divorce of his wife, but then would he not just take regular Forgettol. This leads me to believe that the modification of this drug and his usage of it back up Metcalf’s point that something happened in the past between him, his wife and Pansy and he wants to eradicate this memory. Another thought might be that with this regular consumption of drugs could it not be as simple as Stanhunt overdosed a thought to consider. Finally, Pansy Greenleaf’s persona is interesting the maker seems to believe that she is taking a very high-end drug, which that has been banned. The drugs in his perspective leads a person to complete eradicate their mind and not remind you of anything, not even yourself. This has to mean that she knows something about the whole mystery otherwise why would she try to kill her mind of this thought. To conclude I believe that there is a subplot to this story and it is not just about Stanhunt death. I mean if all three of these characters are taking drugs to repress some sort of thought they must be hiding something and Lethem rendition of all them taking similar drugs is brilliant as it emphasis the mystery of the past of all three characters.
Pranav Shankla
7/7/09
The treatment of the evolved animals in Gun, with Occasional Music vaguely reminds me of the treatment of the Replicants in Blade Runner. The evolved animals are clearly in a class beneath humans. They work menial jobs and are treated entirely different than humans. When Metcalf calls to report Dulcie, the ewe’s, murder the receptionist as the Office says “That’s not a murder.” Meaning that killing an evolved animal isn’t that big a deal. Although there is a much clearer physical difference between humans and evolved animals than humans and Replicants the two seem like similar situations. Replicants were created by humans to be slave labor. They are treated as sub-human despite the fact that their intelligence equals humans’. Replicants are really only different from humans because of semantics and an expiration date. Although evolved animals are not genetically similar to humans it seems to me like they fill a similar role. Evolved animals were created by humans; they have memories, experiences, and are as intelligent as humans. They dress, behave, react, and speak in a manner similar to humans, so why are they considered as sub-human? Traditionally animals have been considered worth less than humans because they are not as intelligent as humans or at least not intelligent by human standards. But evolved animals are intelligent, it seems like they are as intelligent as humans and in the same way. So why are they still treated as if they are considerably less than humans? I think that answer to that is similar to the reason Replicants are treated as less than human. If humanity recognizes that evolved animals are equal to humanity then they have to start treating them better, which would mess up the social system in place. It would also mean admitting that humans are not as special and unique as they like to think themselves.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
Monday, July 6, 2009
Week Three, Blog 1
The topic that fascinates me the most in the last three books has to be the similarity of all three detective male characters. Even though all three books have their distinct genres and are set in different time periods, they all seem to embody the same characteristics as each other. A recurring theme in two of the books has been the transition from police detective to private eye in the case of Marlow and Metcalf. This might be because the writer feels that by having a private eye its makes the character more personal and dedicated in his role of finding a murder instead of having a entire police force search for the murder. Another thought could be it is more formal to have a private detective compared to a police officer, as it could be informal.
Secondly, the thought has crossed my mind that many of these practices that the male characters diverge in could stem from the persona of being an adrenaline junkie. The reason why I say this is that all three male characters seem it necessary to be involved in these detective stories even though they have no reason to be involved. A great example of this would be Quinn he has no reason to protect Peter Stillman wife but he still does. There could be several answers to this but my thought would be that he was bored of his everyday life and need something new and this was it. I mean he gave up his life for several months and resulted in him losing everything he owned. Another variant on this topic would be that they all seem to try to engage in a sexual relationship with a female character. Throughout the books, all three male characters seem to be interested in someone, without even considering that it might comprise their job, but the rush they gain from it seems to spurn them on. To conclude the point I am trying to make here is that the male characters seem to embody the notion that they need this line of work to keep them happy or they will be dissatisfied with their life.
Pranav shankla
Secondly, the thought has crossed my mind that many of these practices that the male characters diverge in could stem from the persona of being an adrenaline junkie. The reason why I say this is that all three male characters seem it necessary to be involved in these detective stories even though they have no reason to be involved. A great example of this would be Quinn he has no reason to protect Peter Stillman wife but he still does. There could be several answers to this but my thought would be that he was bored of his everyday life and need something new and this was it. I mean he gave up his life for several months and resulted in him losing everything he owned. Another variant on this topic would be that they all seem to try to engage in a sexual relationship with a female character. Throughout the books, all three male characters seem to be interested in someone, without even considering that it might comprise their job, but the rush they gain from it seems to spurn them on. To conclude the point I am trying to make here is that the male characters seem to embody the notion that they need this line of work to keep them happy or they will be dissatisfied with their life.
Pranav shankla
Despite the futuristic setting unique to Blade Runner, the film has followed a similar format to our mid-90's detective stories. We still see a loner detective without much investment in the case, little to no development of the detective's past, and a female interest. What I found unique was the complexity of the antagonists. I found myself, more so than in any of our other stories, empathizing significantly with the androids. Rachael especially facilitates a crossover from human to robot, since she is for almost every purpose a cloned human. She has memories and emotional responses, and though created specifically with flaws, she remains nearly human. It is then a small jump from her to the Nexus6 robots, who rebel against their prescribed role, in order to seek more from life. This is a very human quality, and one often specifically seen in American ideals, such as Manifest Destiny.
Whether one empathizes with the robots, as I have, or condemns them as mere machines, they clearly were a menace in their current form and had to be retired. However, it leads directly to the question of whether such projects should be halted or continued with further caution. Humans are not, by nature, peaceful and obliging. We are bellicose, we are greedy, we are prone to mental disorder and each one is full of minor and major mistakes. I do not know the premise of Blade Runner and whether these android uprisings are common or in a significant minority. It would be foolish to think however, that when creating something approximately human, the 'race' as a whole would not be subject to similar problems such as our own psychopaths and serial killers. It may indeed be that the incidence of these problems is lower in these manufactured, and otherwise perfect, almost-humans. It is thus that I cannot condemn these androids to be unilaterally retired, but rather must empathize with the situation they are in and urge these sci-fi scientists to create a better android.
- Jeremy Aronow
Whether one empathizes with the robots, as I have, or condemns them as mere machines, they clearly were a menace in their current form and had to be retired. However, it leads directly to the question of whether such projects should be halted or continued with further caution. Humans are not, by nature, peaceful and obliging. We are bellicose, we are greedy, we are prone to mental disorder and each one is full of minor and major mistakes. I do not know the premise of Blade Runner and whether these android uprisings are common or in a significant minority. It would be foolish to think however, that when creating something approximately human, the 'race' as a whole would not be subject to similar problems such as our own psychopaths and serial killers. It may indeed be that the incidence of these problems is lower in these manufactured, and otherwise perfect, almost-humans. It is thus that I cannot condemn these androids to be unilaterally retired, but rather must empathize with the situation they are in and urge these sci-fi scientists to create a better android.
- Jeremy Aronow
7/6/09
I can see elements of both City of Glass and The Big Sleep in Gun with Occasional Music. It’s written in a style very similar to Chandler’s but it isn’t a simple rehash of the same form. Although Gun with Occasional Music is written in a style similar to Chandler’s it is vastly different because of the science fiction element that is thrown in. It seems as if the science fiction element of the book makes a subtle commentary on society. Perhaps the babyheads are supposed to be cautionary about kids growing up to fast. And it’s not that far of a leap from today’s psychological drugs to the emotion inducing drugs present in Gun with Occasional Music. In my point of view, The Big Sleep is fairly straight forward, its main concern is solving the mystery, it’s not overly concerned with morals or making the reader really think. On the other hand, City of Glass seems to have been written with the object of getting the reader to think and question, it’s not concerned with solving the mystery or answering questions. Gun with Occasional Music seems to fall somewhere in between the other two books. I think it can be read at face value for the sake solving the mystery but I also think that it can be read on a slightly deeper level that makes a social commentary.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
Brevity?
Just noticing that some of our post lengths are falling quite a bit short . . . Just a note, a casual reminder, that they should be, at a minimum, 250 words.
Bryan
Bryan
Labels:
B. R. Smith
GWOM and Bladerunner
Bri Fowle
Gun, with Occasional Music and Bladerunner both project an interesting view of the future. Bladerunner seems to be a very bleak view, complete with (now) not-so-impressive technology and ‘80s hairstyles. Gun, with Occasional Music, on the other hand, is a very different view of the future that holds evolved animals that are part of society and people being measured by the amount of karma they have, which the government controls. It also seems to be a world that is slowly spiraling downward. It seems that the detective in the story has been restored, the fearless man who is going to get to the bottom of the story, no matter what. I wonder if there is any good that is going to come out of Bladerunner, if any justice is going to be served or if there is a twist at the end where the bad guys aren’t as bad as they are portrayed. I wonder if in Gun, with Occasional Music, the supposed good guys aren’t as good as the public sees them. I hope that there is more sense made than the postmodern, metaphysical works such as City of Glass. I hope that we do not analyze details in the book that seem important but are just left in the dust and discarded. So far, the two works that we are in the process of watching/reading seem to be promising. There is a real mystery in the book and the movie draws you in and makes you want to finish and find out the meaning of everything.
Gun, with Occasional Music and Bladerunner both project an interesting view of the future. Bladerunner seems to be a very bleak view, complete with (now) not-so-impressive technology and ‘80s hairstyles. Gun, with Occasional Music, on the other hand, is a very different view of the future that holds evolved animals that are part of society and people being measured by the amount of karma they have, which the government controls. It also seems to be a world that is slowly spiraling downward. It seems that the detective in the story has been restored, the fearless man who is going to get to the bottom of the story, no matter what. I wonder if there is any good that is going to come out of Bladerunner, if any justice is going to be served or if there is a twist at the end where the bad guys aren’t as bad as they are portrayed. I wonder if in Gun, with Occasional Music, the supposed good guys aren’t as good as the public sees them. I hope that there is more sense made than the postmodern, metaphysical works such as City of Glass. I hope that we do not analyze details in the book that seem important but are just left in the dust and discarded. So far, the two works that we are in the process of watching/reading seem to be promising. There is a real mystery in the book and the movie draws you in and makes you want to finish and find out the meaning of everything.
gun, with occasional music
This novel thus far, fits perfectly in the hard boiled detective genre. The main character Metcalf, is giving us a lot of detail and description throughout everything he does. It has, however, raised some questions. The issue with Karma, came up very early in the book and is still being discussed but has not been explained very well. I am starting to wonder when it is going to be since it seems very important. If I had to take a guess it seems like an ironic term to be used in a hard-boiled detective novel. I feel that the higher the Karma number you have the more chance you have of something happening to you that would to the reader seem, "ironic". I think it is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out throughout the rest of the novel.
There is another question that I started asking very early on in this novel. I am wondering what the importance of the names of different kind of make are. The words that are being used to me seem just like cognitives from a foreign language. They sound just like other words but are spelled just a little different and still mean the same thing. The words that are used such as Addictol, Believol, Regretol, and Forgettol. All of these words seem very important in depending on which character is using which ones. I think it will be very interesting again to see how these words play out in terms of importance to each character.
There is another question that I started asking very early on in this novel. I am wondering what the importance of the names of different kind of make are. The words that are being used to me seem just like cognitives from a foreign language. They sound just like other words but are spelled just a little different and still mean the same thing. The words that are used such as Addictol, Believol, Regretol, and Forgettol. All of these words seem very important in depending on which character is using which ones. I think it will be very interesting again to see how these words play out in terms of importance to each character.
7/6
If I could put a kind of label on Gun, With Occasional Music, I would call a sci-fi detective novel. It combines traditional detective themes, reminiscent of The Big Sleep, with a futuristic world that reeks of metaphor. It is strange, but at the same time a slightly enjoyable read. My curiosity has been the catalyst of pushing through this book so far. I’m definitely thrown by the babyheads. I don’t really understand what exactly they are yet. The evolved animals are an abstract concept, but Lethem seems to cater the dialogue to just the right balance, allowing the reader to accept their presence. The most interesting aspect of the story, to me, is the drug use. Lethem uses the drugs as a mechanism in almost every chapter, and I think that it adds another dimension of reality to the story.
-Jason
-Jason
Crack
In the first few chapters of, gun, with occasional music, I began to pick up on something I found interesting that may or may not have anything to do with the overall plot, purpose, or outcome of the novel. I found it a bit intriguing based on prior readings we had done. I found it interesting that virtually every character thus far has done some form of crack or cocaine or something similar.
While many characters have seemingly been drug attics, the one that intrigued me the most was Metcalf, our protagonist, or detective, or “hero.” Or at least he supposed to be a hero according to Chandler, the man who thought in every good detective novel the detective should be a real hero. Maybe I’m a little naive or conservative, but I just don’t imagine a hero doing any sort of drugs or any legal activity at all.
With that said, maybe Lethem doesn’t believe in the same philosophy as Chandler, maybe he doesn’t see the detective as a hero or “knight in shinning armor,” at all. What does this make him then? How are we to view this guys character, who is he and why does he do what he does? There is a chance that these questions have no barring on the plot or the outcome of the novel, but I will ask them any way because it is the first significantly different detail from all the other works we have studied thus far. I do though, hope to see as the novel plays out, this question of character turn into an answer and play some significant role in how the case is solved and how the novel is written in terms of Metcalf’s Character.
I suppose I will just wait and see.
While many characters have seemingly been drug attics, the one that intrigued me the most was Metcalf, our protagonist, or detective, or “hero.” Or at least he supposed to be a hero according to Chandler, the man who thought in every good detective novel the detective should be a real hero. Maybe I’m a little naive or conservative, but I just don’t imagine a hero doing any sort of drugs or any legal activity at all.
With that said, maybe Lethem doesn’t believe in the same philosophy as Chandler, maybe he doesn’t see the detective as a hero or “knight in shinning armor,” at all. What does this make him then? How are we to view this guys character, who is he and why does he do what he does? There is a chance that these questions have no barring on the plot or the outcome of the novel, but I will ask them any way because it is the first significantly different detail from all the other works we have studied thus far. I do though, hope to see as the novel plays out, this question of character turn into an answer and play some significant role in how the case is solved and how the novel is written in terms of Metcalf’s Character.
I suppose I will just wait and see.
7/6/09
I am interested to see where the karma points are going to be at the end of the novel. So far they are highly discussed but poorly explained. Something that is continuously written about and has such a high influence in character development will have to be thoroughly explored. This is the first time that we have really seen issues with the main character. Which is a brand new issue to go along with the plot. Before in the novels, the main character has been a hero, someone that continuously keeping their calm no matter what the situation. We finally have a main character that is less charismatic, someone that is not so reliable. This brings many questions to the readers mind if we believe the narrator or not. Which it becomes hard to do when there are such confusing things into the plotline, which are neither exactly imaginable nor plausible. We now just wonder if this person is actually living in the world that he is describing or is it just what he sees when he is on his ‘special blend.’
Monica
Monica
7/6/09
One of the things I have noticed in all of our texts; books and movies included, is all are based out of California, mainly Los Angeles, except for City of Glass; which is based out of New York. I just find it interesting because in each of the texts we have studied, they depict some sort of variation of a hardboiled detective story. To me Los Angeles, California is the prime stereotypical location for most crime plots based off of the neo-noir era. It fits it perfectly because it was the center of the beginning of growth and crime at that time period; anything was possible. The last two texts we are studying; Gun, With Occasional Music and Blade Runner are heavily influenced by both neo-noir and science fiction. I feel as though these two texts are placed best in the final studies because they are so abstract from the earlier text we have studied. Gun, With Occasional Music is extremely odd and abstract to me and Blade Runner just reeks of the 80’s. Even though both plots are depicted in the advanced future, you still get a good feel of the hardboiled detective from the main character. The first four texts we have studies rely heavily on the American neo-noir, hardboiled detective story line. It seems as though Raymond Chandler was one of the godfathers of this stylized writing and I enjoyed that we started with his book first. Stepping next into Paul Auster’s postmodernist style into finally the science fiction influenced texts.
-Erin L.
-Erin L.
Blade Runner
Despite the futuristic setting unique to Blade Runner, the film has followed a similar format to our mid-90's detective stories. We still see a loner detective without much investment in the case, little to no development of the detective's past, and a female interest. What I found unique was the complexity of the antagonists. I found myself, more so than in any of our other stories, empathizing significantly with the androids. Rachael especially facilitates a crossover from human to robot, since she is for almost every purpose a cloned human. She has memories and emotional responses, and though created specifically with flaws, she remains nearly human. It is then a small jump from her to the Nexus6 robots, who rebel against their prescribed role, in order to seek more from life. This is a very human quality, and one often specifically seen in American ideals, such as Manifest Destiny.
Whether one empathizes with the robots, as I have, or condemns them as mere machines, they clearly were a menace in their current form and had to be retired. However, it leads directly to the question of whether such projects should be halted or continued with further caution. Humans are not, by nature, peaceful and obliging. We are bellicose, we are greedy, we are prone to mental disorder and each one is full of minor and major mistakes. I do not know the premise of Blade Runner and whether these android uprisings are common or in a significant minority. It would be foolish to think however, that when creating something approximately human, the 'race' as a whole would not be subject to similar problems such as our own psychopaths and serial killers. It may indeed be that the incidence of these problems is lower in these manufactured, and otherwise perfect, almost-humans. It is thus that I cannot condemn these androids to be unilaterally retired, but rather must empathize with the situation they are in and urge these sci-fi scientists to create a better android.
Whether one empathizes with the robots, as I have, or condemns them as mere machines, they clearly were a menace in their current form and had to be retired. However, it leads directly to the question of whether such projects should be halted or continued with further caution. Humans are not, by nature, peaceful and obliging. We are bellicose, we are greedy, we are prone to mental disorder and each one is full of minor and major mistakes. I do not know the premise of Blade Runner and whether these android uprisings are common or in a significant minority. It would be foolish to think however, that when creating something approximately human, the 'race' as a whole would not be subject to similar problems such as our own psychopaths and serial killers. It may indeed be that the incidence of these problems is lower in these manufactured, and otherwise perfect, almost-humans. It is thus that I cannot condemn these androids to be unilaterally retired, but rather must empathize with the situation they are in and urge these sci-fi scientists to create a better android.
Gun with Occasional Music
Gun with Occasional Music is different from any detective book I've read. The evolved animals and babyheads confused me at first. Also, is the man he is investigating for a rabbit? The evolved kangaroo does not seem threatening at all although he has a gun. I cant get around the full grown babies and animals to take the book seriously though.
Blade Runner was more believeable although it was only set in 2013. The robots didnt seem at all different from humans which didnt make much sense to me. I also dont understand why L.A. is mostly chinese and run down. I dont the like the sci fi theme that much because it is completely unrealistic and I dont take it seriously at all.
Blade Runner was more believeable although it was only set in 2013. The robots didnt seem at all different from humans which didnt make much sense to me. I also dont understand why L.A. is mostly chinese and run down. I dont the like the sci fi theme that much because it is completely unrealistic and I dont take it seriously at all.
next genre
After our discussion Thursday about the differences between hard-boiled postmodern and metaphysical genres. I am curious to see what the next genre moves into. So far I have noticed a theme of surrealism in both Blade Runner and Gun With Occasional Music. Blade Runner is set in the future (or the 80’s idea of the future) where human like life forms are engineered to be superior to the human race. Humans have moved off-world to a better living place. In Gun With Occasional Music, it is also the future, and a place where all creatures can become “evolved,” from babies to any animal at all. Babies can take care of themselves, drink and go out of their own. Animals can learn in school and become domesticated, taking on jobs that humans once held. Alcohol has a large presence in blade runner. Similarly, in Gun With Occasional Music, there is a large inebriating influence; drugs are commonplace. Drugs are no longer taboo and people create custom blends of different types of drugs to have their own special “make” to suit their desires.
Unlike the metaphysical work we have studied, I predict that this work will have a resolution at the end. What I mean by that is that Metcalf will accomplish the work that he was set out to do in the first place, though he may encounter other plot twists and sub plots. I think that is where this story will be similar to The Big Sleep.
Bryce Rubin
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Final Post week 2
I was very disappointed with the ending of the City of Glass. Like all great literature, you hope that the end will mount up to something that will make you think outside the box and stimulate your mind however it did not take this turn but I will away from this and look more closely and how it can be compared to other deactivate books. As deactivate books go the leading male character always seem to be very strong mentally and physically. Take the example of Auster he live outside Peter Stillman house for months without sleeping or even eating a regular amount of food a day. Also in the case of Marlow from the Big Sleep, he stops at no end to find out the killer even if he breaks the law or risks his own life.
Even though many of us have disliked this book, it takes a new turn in terms of a detective novel. Not many novels have the author playing an actual character and in fact not having a detective investigating the mystery is a new notion for a detective novel. To sum up I feel that this book can a new turn of detective books perhaps the author is trying to relate his book to perhaps a new world which we exist in where not everything is so idealistic and more things are realistic, just a thought to consider.
Pranav Shankla
Even though many of us have disliked this book, it takes a new turn in terms of a detective novel. Not many novels have the author playing an actual character and in fact not having a detective investigating the mystery is a new notion for a detective novel. To sum up I feel that this book can a new turn of detective books perhaps the author is trying to relate his book to perhaps a new world which we exist in where not everything is so idealistic and more things are realistic, just a thought to consider.
Pranav Shankla
City of Glass
The book in all made me feel sad for Quinn. Throughout the whole book it seemed that he was grasping for a true identity or one to hide behind. Nothing in his life seemed to have been exciting or rewarding in the long run - thus why he changes identities so often. The ending being set in winter reflects the ending of the book appropriately. Winter makes me feel depressed, if the book were to end in spring or summer I think it would be very contradicting.
I liked the book as a whole because it wasnt as clean cut as other detective novels are in which you know the detective, the suspects, and who they are as people. In the Big Sleep, although we didnt know Marlowe's past, we still knew exactly what his personality was like and that never faultered throughout the book. I think City of Glass was more realistic when it came to characters. We all alter who we are in different scenarios - we are different around our friends, our teachers, and our parents. People are complex creatures. I think Auster set out to show this in City of Glass.
I liked the book as a whole because it wasnt as clean cut as other detective novels are in which you know the detective, the suspects, and who they are as people. In the Big Sleep, although we didnt know Marlowe's past, we still knew exactly what his personality was like and that never faultered throughout the book. I think City of Glass was more realistic when it came to characters. We all alter who we are in different scenarios - we are different around our friends, our teachers, and our parents. People are complex creatures. I think Auster set out to show this in City of Glass.
7/1/09
This ending was very unsatisfying to me, we are left with no true answers, as either the answers that we got from Auster were questioned by Quinn or we never had them at all. and as for the narrator, we are completely clueless as who it is. We are left to wonder where Quinn is, and where the food was coming from. I continue to feel bad for Quinn in the end, his past year has really amounted to nothing, as everything that he had consumed his life with had been a failure. He had truly disappeared in the world except to Auster, who could not reach him.
It is interesting to see the time change, even though we do not know days we know the time of year based on the weather. The fact that it ends with a winter scene we are left with a calming feeling even if the ending contradicts the weather. The white blanket makes it seem as if everything is and will be okay, and it is almost like a new beginning. Which could be, considering how Quinn is known to stop his life and start a new. For all we know he has completely started a new identity, and is once again writing perhaps a new genre. This novel has become more of a mystery, rather than a detective novel, but it really only seems fitting for Quinn to be the main character of a mystery novel because that was the genre that he loved so much.
It is interesting to see the time change, even though we do not know days we know the time of year based on the weather. The fact that it ends with a winter scene we are left with a calming feeling even if the ending contradicts the weather. The white blanket makes it seem as if everything is and will be okay, and it is almost like a new beginning. Which could be, considering how Quinn is known to stop his life and start a new. For all we know he has completely started a new identity, and is once again writing perhaps a new genre. This novel has become more of a mystery, rather than a detective novel, but it really only seems fitting for Quinn to be the main character of a mystery novel because that was the genre that he loved so much.
Empty
I find it interesting that I just read a 201 page novel and come away from it feeling somehow empty. Auster neither lifts me up nor shoots me down, he doesn’t even give me that “ah Ha” moment that we all so much desire in virtually every story. With this said I would argue that Auster had some intention of making the reader feel this way, making us go on this journey to no where for us learn something about our selves. Maybe to hopefully bring some awareness to our own personal identity in hopes to avoid going nuts like the characters in City of Glass .
Well maybe this is a bit of a stretch, maybe Auster’s plan wasn’t quite that ambiguous, but I do believe that this argument has some merit on some level. After all Quinn struggles with a bit of an identity crisis from the beginning with the whole William Wilson pseudo name; then as the book moves along, Quinn takes on the role of Paul Auster, a detective, which he only writes detective novels, he doesn’t have the slightest clue what a detective’s thinking process is in solving a case. So in order to better commit to the part and hopefully solve the case, Quinn forces himself to completely forgo all personal thought and completely become Auster. Only problem is, he has no idea who this guy is. So he attempts to solve the case while he has no thought process and no sense of purpose or direction. On top of this identity crisis we have Peter Stillman Jr. who has no real clue who he is or why he exists; and then we have Peter Stillman Sr. who apparently has a twin, and is not completely confident who he is.
As we read through all these identity issues, it becomes easy to see how the book then seems confusing or empty or unclear; for it has what I will argue is an identity crisis of its own. What is it? What is it really about? All these questions can be asked and as readers we are given little to no answers. Would it be ridiculous to argue that Paul Auster as the author maybe had or has a bit of an identity crisis as a writer, maybe he has or is unsure of whom he truly is as a writer and that why the work is so unclear to us. Then maybe he likes it this way and believes we should find it interesting and deciphering who he is as a writer and what this work should mean. Maybe it’s a bit of stretch, but none the less, it did pop into my head as I finished the work. What does it all mean?
Well maybe this is a bit of a stretch, maybe Auster’s plan wasn’t quite that ambiguous, but I do believe that this argument has some merit on some level. After all Quinn struggles with a bit of an identity crisis from the beginning with the whole William Wilson pseudo name; then as the book moves along, Quinn takes on the role of Paul Auster, a detective, which he only writes detective novels, he doesn’t have the slightest clue what a detective’s thinking process is in solving a case. So in order to better commit to the part and hopefully solve the case, Quinn forces himself to completely forgo all personal thought and completely become Auster. Only problem is, he has no idea who this guy is. So he attempts to solve the case while he has no thought process and no sense of purpose or direction. On top of this identity crisis we have Peter Stillman Jr. who has no real clue who he is or why he exists; and then we have Peter Stillman Sr. who apparently has a twin, and is not completely confident who he is.
As we read through all these identity issues, it becomes easy to see how the book then seems confusing or empty or unclear; for it has what I will argue is an identity crisis of its own. What is it? What is it really about? All these questions can be asked and as readers we are given little to no answers. Would it be ridiculous to argue that Paul Auster as the author maybe had or has a bit of an identity crisis as a writer, maybe he has or is unsure of whom he truly is as a writer and that why the work is so unclear to us. Then maybe he likes it this way and believes we should find it interesting and deciphering who he is as a writer and what this work should mean. Maybe it’s a bit of stretch, but none the less, it did pop into my head as I finished the work. What does it all mean?
A Quick Note
While I realize most of you are frustrated by the book (and you're entitled to your frustration, no doubt), the aim of this blog is to engage with the work in a way that's analytical and interpretative. I'm far more interested in seeing how you might place the work and its goals in context (say within the detective genre). My interest lies not in the evaluation of its quality but in the evaluation of its place (what does it do? how does it do it? under what terms? what is new about it? what is old? what does it say? how does it say it?)
Indulging Auster's aims for a few moments, what has he done with the workings of the genre, and how? What does his character's plight say about the workings of the detective and his world? What does it say about writing and literature? What does it say about our world? There are, I believe, clear answers to these questions. . . .
Cheers,
-B
Indulging Auster's aims for a few moments, what has he done with the workings of the genre, and how? What does his character's plight say about the workings of the detective and his world? What does it say about writing and literature? What does it say about our world? There are, I believe, clear answers to these questions. . . .
Cheers,
-B
Labels:
B. R. Smith
Empty Conclusion
Confused, and frustrated are about the only words that can describe how I feel after finishing City of Glass. I am left with complete emptiness after finishing this piece. From the beginning I was a little confused where this book was going. I started to understand what was going towards the middle and now having finished; I am completely lost and frustrated for having wasted my time trying to follow this book.
First, we see Quinn who is supposed to be this writer turn into a wanna be detective. He tries to take on the persona of his novels and it ends up making him crazy. He spends moths outside Stillman's home trying to protect him, where in reality he probably should have been protecting himself. He allowed himself to turn into a homeless man who had no purpose or direction in life.
Secondly, what happened to the "case" he was on. We do hear that Stillman committed suicide, yet the reader receives no sense of comfort. What happened to Peter and Virginia? They disappeared and Quinn could not reach them. Quinn was it turn protecting nothing when he was standing watch over an empty home.
Finally, the author uses the word "we" again, however, the author is apparently not Auster. The author and Auster go to check the Stillman residence and it is empty except the red notebook. What happened to Quinn? Quinn has disappeared and not heard of again. The reader is left completely in the dark and completely empty. It does not answer any of the questions you ask throughout the work.
Brett McAdams
First, we see Quinn who is supposed to be this writer turn into a wanna be detective. He tries to take on the persona of his novels and it ends up making him crazy. He spends moths outside Stillman's home trying to protect him, where in reality he probably should have been protecting himself. He allowed himself to turn into a homeless man who had no purpose or direction in life.
Secondly, what happened to the "case" he was on. We do hear that Stillman committed suicide, yet the reader receives no sense of comfort. What happened to Peter and Virginia? They disappeared and Quinn could not reach them. Quinn was it turn protecting nothing when he was standing watch over an empty home.
Finally, the author uses the word "we" again, however, the author is apparently not Auster. The author and Auster go to check the Stillman residence and it is empty except the red notebook. What happened to Quinn? Quinn has disappeared and not heard of again. The reader is left completely in the dark and completely empty. It does not answer any of the questions you ask throughout the work.
Brett McAdams
A book with no story
Saying I’m disappointed with the ending of City of Glass would be an understatement. From the beginning of the novel, we’re warned that you can’t necessarily believe anything to be as it seems. From this point on I became skeptical of everything mentioned/written in the story, believing that nothing was true or that the story was being told deceptively.
This book left me completely unsatisfied; it leaves a million questions unanswered. For one, where did Peter and Virginia Stillman go? For days their phone was busy, making them unreachable, and then they disappear. They had to have left before Quinn/Auster had taken his post for he would have seen them leave the apartment.
Secondly, Stillman’s twin is never addressed again. We had thought that since Quinn as an author thought that every single thing in a detective novel had significance, or at least the potential to be significant, that he would for sure reappear. Instead, we see him for that brief moment in Grand Central, we are confused, and then he is gone. Never addressed again.
Thirdly, Quinn goes insane…? He turns himself into a homeless man as he guards Peter Stillman, sees himself in a mirror and says, “this is how I always imagined myself.” Okay. Then he eventually finds his way into Peter’s apartment (all doors are unlocked, mind you, which would NEVER happen in NYC), and then lays on the floor naked for days, getting fed by an unknown, and then disappears forever.
We now understand where the “we” in the first page comes from. The author, who doesn’t say he is Paul Auster, finds the red notebook that contains Quinn’s detective journey. He doesn’t know Quinn at all, he isn’t making the story up. Quinn is a mystery to him as well. Quinn then disappears, never to be seen again.
This book is awful.
bryce rubin
7/01/09
The ending of City of Glass frustrated me because nothing was really resolved. In fact, it left me with more unanswered questions than I had at the beginning. But perhaps that was Auster’s goal? I feel as though Auster writing such an ambiguous ending would have to be deliberate. Having reached the conclusion of the book I think I can understand Quinn’s feelings after he had been following Stillman for a while and was wondering if it was a waste of time. Quinn chooses to believe that Stillman knew he was being followed and therefore had an elaborately concocted scheme rather than believe that Stillman was aimlessly wondering. Likewise, I choose to believe that Auster had some purpose in mind with such a vague ending. What that purpose is I can’t even begin to imagine but I choose to believe that Auster had purpose behind his writing so that I don’t feel as though I’ve been wasting my time with the aimless writing of a madman.
Perhaps if Quinn had followed the second Stillman the book would have ended very differently. The moment in the book when Quinn has to decide which Stillman to follow reminded me of those cheesy chose your own ending books, where it tells you to turn to page 5 if you want the character to do action x but turn to page 20 if you want the character to do action y. Quinn had to make a choice and his decision was as arbitrary as choosing x or y. After that point in the book I kept expecting the second Stillman to reappear. Perhaps it was the second Stillman who jumped off the bridge, not the ragged Stillman Quinn had been following. Although it seemed as if Stillman (#1) was foreshadowing his demise in his last conversation with Quinn. In that last conversation between Quinn-as-Peter Stillman Jr. and Peter Stillman Sr., Stillman told Quinn/Peter Jr. that now he could die happily. In addition, he mentioned something about lying making you wish you were dead and we know that Stillman lied at least once, in his book’s discussion of Henry Dark. Maybe Peter Stillman Jr. and Virginia disappeared because of the second Stillman. Perhaps the second Stillman was the one they were worried about. There are an endless number of unanswered questions. Something the really interested me was the author’s reference to Auster at the end. He says that he severed ties with his once good friend Auster because he felt that Auster had treated Quinn very poorly. However, I didn’t see anything horrible in Auster’s treatment of Quinn so it makes me wonder if there is more to Auster’s part of the story than we know. After all the author tells us he has written only what was in the red notebook, so how much of the story hasn’t been told to us?
Perhaps if Quinn had followed the second Stillman the book would have ended very differently. The moment in the book when Quinn has to decide which Stillman to follow reminded me of those cheesy chose your own ending books, where it tells you to turn to page 5 if you want the character to do action x but turn to page 20 if you want the character to do action y. Quinn had to make a choice and his decision was as arbitrary as choosing x or y. After that point in the book I kept expecting the second Stillman to reappear. Perhaps it was the second Stillman who jumped off the bridge, not the ragged Stillman Quinn had been following. Although it seemed as if Stillman (#1) was foreshadowing his demise in his last conversation with Quinn. In that last conversation between Quinn-as-Peter Stillman Jr. and Peter Stillman Sr., Stillman told Quinn/Peter Jr. that now he could die happily. In addition, he mentioned something about lying making you wish you were dead and we know that Stillman lied at least once, in his book’s discussion of Henry Dark. Maybe Peter Stillman Jr. and Virginia disappeared because of the second Stillman. Perhaps the second Stillman was the one they were worried about. There are an endless number of unanswered questions. Something the really interested me was the author’s reference to Auster at the end. He says that he severed ties with his once good friend Auster because he felt that Auster had treated Quinn very poorly. However, I didn’t see anything horrible in Auster’s treatment of Quinn so it makes me wonder if there is more to Auster’s part of the story than we know. After all the author tells us he has written only what was in the red notebook, so how much of the story hasn’t been told to us?
not sure what to make of it....
Bri Fowle
I am really very confused by the ending of the book. For whatever reason, Quinn becomes completely obsessed with the Stillmans, except for the fact that he never once approaches them or sees them at all. He hides in an alley next to the house and watches them vigilantly. He basically turns into Stillman, obsessing over the smallest thing and trying to overanalyze every thing that happens or doesn’t happen. After a couple months, he finally gets up and expects everything to be as it used to be. Instead, he is left without any money, no house, no food, no clothes, and no possessions whatsoever. He goes back to the Stillmans house and obsessively writes in his red notebook, naked and laying on the floor. He becomes unaware and uncaring of everything around him, even about the food that mysteriously appeared next to him. The case that he took made him pretend to be someone else and consequently Quinn disappeared from the inside out, until he just disappeared entirely. The end of the book made me feel completely unsatisfied. I feel like I just read a book that left me in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but questions. The case wasn’t even really solved, Virginia and Peter Stillman disappeared, the check bounced, and I have no idea who that person was in the end. I wonder what the person at the end meant when he said that he was no longer friends with Paul Auster. To me that made no sense because the author was Paul Auster and how can he not be friends with himself? It really makes me wonder if the author and the character are the same or separate.
I am really very confused by the ending of the book. For whatever reason, Quinn becomes completely obsessed with the Stillmans, except for the fact that he never once approaches them or sees them at all. He hides in an alley next to the house and watches them vigilantly. He basically turns into Stillman, obsessing over the smallest thing and trying to overanalyze every thing that happens or doesn’t happen. After a couple months, he finally gets up and expects everything to be as it used to be. Instead, he is left without any money, no house, no food, no clothes, and no possessions whatsoever. He goes back to the Stillmans house and obsessively writes in his red notebook, naked and laying on the floor. He becomes unaware and uncaring of everything around him, even about the food that mysteriously appeared next to him. The case that he took made him pretend to be someone else and consequently Quinn disappeared from the inside out, until he just disappeared entirely. The end of the book made me feel completely unsatisfied. I feel like I just read a book that left me in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but questions. The case wasn’t even really solved, Virginia and Peter Stillman disappeared, the check bounced, and I have no idea who that person was in the end. I wonder what the person at the end meant when he said that he was no longer friends with Paul Auster. To me that made no sense because the author was Paul Auster and how can he not be friends with himself? It really makes me wonder if the author and the character are the same or separate.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
City of Glass Post 2
Pranav Shankla
After reading chapters 6-9 what I found most interesting has to be the interaction of communication between Auster and Peter Stillman’s father. For example the first time they communicate with each other was in an indirect way and that being Auster reading Stillman books. The books followed what was expected, highly religious and his thoughts about the world. The significance of this information is unknown so far though later it might lead to unlocking the mystery about Stillman agenda. The second way was again intriguing in the way Auster follows Stillman around trying to find out who he really is without actually confronting him. This part of the book interested me as it shows how the characters can interact so well with each other even without meeting one and other. Finally, the last type of interaction they had was when they actually meet for the first time. This by far was the best part of the book. The interaction between the two was short, precise, and very witty. They seem to be very skeptical of each other so that they can find out who they both really are in this so-called realistic world. To sum up the point I am trying to get at is that I like how the author interaction between the characters build up the suspense of the book, but also leaves you guessing into what each characters role is in the book.
After reading chapters 6-9 what I found most interesting has to be the interaction of communication between Auster and Peter Stillman’s father. For example the first time they communicate with each other was in an indirect way and that being Auster reading Stillman books. The books followed what was expected, highly religious and his thoughts about the world. The significance of this information is unknown so far though later it might lead to unlocking the mystery about Stillman agenda. The second way was again intriguing in the way Auster follows Stillman around trying to find out who he really is without actually confronting him. This part of the book interested me as it shows how the characters can interact so well with each other even without meeting one and other. Finally, the last type of interaction they had was when they actually meet for the first time. This by far was the best part of the book. The interaction between the two was short, precise, and very witty. They seem to be very skeptical of each other so that they can find out who they both really are in this so-called realistic world. To sum up the point I am trying to get at is that I like how the author interaction between the characters build up the suspense of the book, but also leaves you guessing into what each characters role is in the book.
City of Glass Language
Auster begins to take this novel in an interesting direction through the middle chapters. Auster takes us through this history of language/ colonization lesson as interpreted by Peter Stillman’s father. What, I guess; interested me during chapter 6-9 was the potential development of the importance of language. Obviously, we already know Peter Stillman has an interesting dialect and way of communicating; therefore Auster has already lead on to the fact that communication and language are at least different, if not crucial in understanding this yet to be solved case/ novel. Now after reading this last section, I am very curious to know where Auster is going with lesson on the development of “Gods Language,” language in general, and early colonization.
Obviously there was some significance to reading Stillman’s book and outlining this myriad of information. The question now becomes, what is this information we have now gained used for moving forward? Is it that language will be significant in allowing Quinn/ us the readers to directly solve the problem at hand, or will it help to understand certain characters better, thus allowing us to better understand where we stand in solving the problem?
In comparison with the other works we have studied, City of Glass is quite different thus far, at least in the way the situation has been set up in the first 9 chapters. I mean we still have our protagonist/ detective, the potentially devious women, the problem that needs to be solved etc… The difference lies in how we have reached this point. The fact that the Stillman’s think or say they believe Quinn is Paul Auster, which he is not and he is not a real detective which they believe he is. Also, the meeting with Mr. Stillman was obviously quite bizarre and so too was the interaction between Mrs. Stillman and Quinn so early in the book. Then we now have this interesting introduction of the significance and history of language. Different, but interesting; now I obviously can’t wait to see were Auster is headed.
Obviously there was some significance to reading Stillman’s book and outlining this myriad of information. The question now becomes, what is this information we have now gained used for moving forward? Is it that language will be significant in allowing Quinn/ us the readers to directly solve the problem at hand, or will it help to understand certain characters better, thus allowing us to better understand where we stand in solving the problem?
In comparison with the other works we have studied, City of Glass is quite different thus far, at least in the way the situation has been set up in the first 9 chapters. I mean we still have our protagonist/ detective, the potentially devious women, the problem that needs to be solved etc… The difference lies in how we have reached this point. The fact that the Stillman’s think or say they believe Quinn is Paul Auster, which he is not and he is not a real detective which they believe he is. Also, the meeting with Mr. Stillman was obviously quite bizarre and so too was the interaction between Mrs. Stillman and Quinn so early in the book. Then we now have this interesting introduction of the significance and history of language. Different, but interesting; now I obviously can’t wait to see were Auster is headed.
Auster's Theology
Auster’s engagement in theological speculation is predominant in this section of City of Glass. In particular he addresses the idea of the Tower of Babel through the medium of Stillman’s book. As Quinn (or Auster or whomever he has decided to be that day) examines Stillman’s work, the extent of Stillman’s theological intrigues are revealed to the reader. Of particular import is the work of Milton’s contemporary, Henry Dark. Dark believe that the New World was some kind of saintly conduit through which the righteous will pass, its roots extending back only to the arrival of the Mayflower on Plymouth Rock. He drew a parallel from the landing of the Mayflower to Noah and the Flood, and it was only a hop and a skip from there to predict that, as the Tower of Babel was erected 340 years after the Flood, so too would there be a new tower erected in America 340 years after the landing of the Mayflower.
The continuous reference to Babel and the idea of an all-encompassing language of absolute truth are themes that not only run through City of Glass, but define its theological and philosophical undertones. In addressing this idea of a common language of innocence, I reject it whole-heartedly. The idea is rooted in pure philosophy, theology and, most importantly, speculation. However, as insane as Dark sounds, he does put forth one idea that I agree with. Common Messianism dictates that there will come a day when a prophet will deliver us to a new Garden of Eden and usher in an age of peace. But Dark says that that notion is a load. On the contrary, surely all we have is world we live in and everything that is contained within it. If there is to be some kind of age of peace, it will be brought about by the work of man in the places we already live, and not the supernatural.
-Jason
The continuous reference to Babel and the idea of an all-encompassing language of absolute truth are themes that not only run through City of Glass, but define its theological and philosophical undertones. In addressing this idea of a common language of innocence, I reject it whole-heartedly. The idea is rooted in pure philosophy, theology and, most importantly, speculation. However, as insane as Dark sounds, he does put forth one idea that I agree with. Common Messianism dictates that there will come a day when a prophet will deliver us to a new Garden of Eden and usher in an age of peace. But Dark says that that notion is a load. On the contrary, surely all we have is world we live in and everything that is contained within it. If there is to be some kind of age of peace, it will be brought about by the work of man in the places we already live, and not the supernatural.
-Jason
6/30
Language has become very prevalent in this novel now. It seems that Quinn is more interested in Stillmans writing than the actual case in some aspects. Although it really makes perfect sense considering how Quinn is in fact a writer himself. My issue with it is that I am having a hard time trying to decide how this long drawn out discovery is important to the rest of the story. I understand that it has importance to see where Stillman was coming from (to an extent) to lock his son up for nine years, but it seems very drug out, as if there is a strong importance. Except, of course, for the fact that 1960 was the year that Stillman locked up his son, and it was the same year as the new Babel.
Also I find it interesting that Quinn discusses how when he is pretending to be Paul Auster it makes him so much freer, and he does not have to worry about his normal stressors. This is silly to me because Quinn has already made up other characters; I’m not sure why it takes this one to actually pull him out of his funk. My only true guess is maybe because Auster is in fact a real person to his knowledge, and he already had a reputation that he needs to uphold. Which is a similarity to Chinatown, in the fact that there is identity fraud, which is a new issue that had not been in The Big Sleep nor Brick.
Also I find it interesting that Quinn discusses how when he is pretending to be Paul Auster it makes him so much freer, and he does not have to worry about his normal stressors. This is silly to me because Quinn has already made up other characters; I’m not sure why it takes this one to actually pull him out of his funk. My only true guess is maybe because Auster is in fact a real person to his knowledge, and he already had a reputation that he needs to uphold. Which is a similarity to Chinatown, in the fact that there is identity fraud, which is a new issue that had not been in The Big Sleep nor Brick.
6/30/09
To me one of the most striking differences between The Big Sleep and Chinatown was the presence of good. In The Big Sleep basically all of the characters were one degree of criminal or another. Most of the characters were a mix of good and bad, with no set of characters being held up as right or better. However, in Chinatown there was a definite undertone of good versus evil. Gittes, Evelyn, Hollis and even Katherine are defiantly portrayed as being “good” people and Noah Cross and his underlings are portrayed as “bad” or “evil” people. The stark contrast between Hollis and Noah was very interesting to me. The two of them were partners, they were equally wealthy, powerful and respected, but they are very opposite characters. Hollis is the epitome of goodness; he struggles to do right by the people of L.A., he takes care of Evelyn and her daughter, his every action seems to be for someone else’s good. Noah Cross, on the other hand, is a despicable man; he is ruthless, greedy, arrogant, a murderer and a horrible father. Nowhere in The Big Sleep are two such polar opposite characters found. No single character in The Big Sleep is as admirable as Hollis or as disgusting as Noah. For me that is why the ending of Chinatown seems so hopeless. Noah has gotten everything he wants and he destroyed Hollis and Evelyn in the process. It seems like a triumph of evil over good. Whereas neither good nor evil wins out in The Big Sleep because neither is found in any concentrated form. The ending of The Big Sleep is actually kind of hopeful in my view. It is revealed that none of the characters are as degenerate as they might originally seem to be.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
The Patient Life of the Detective
The life of the detective is always glorified in mystery novels. They’re always walking in on murders, over hearing shady phone calls, and discovering some shocking plot twist 50 pages into the novel. However, I must imagine there is a lot of waiting involved in the life of a detective. We see some of that when Quinn is following Mr. Stillman through the streets of NY. After 14 days he’s bored and wants to give up; we never hear detectives say this in other mystery novels. Maybe it’s because Quinn is an accidental detective and not one by profession.
It is mentioned that Quinn spends his days wandering the streets of NY. He walks down avenues only watching, never speaking, observing without judgement; it allows him to lose himself. How ironic is it that he winds up following Mr. Stillman doing the same exact thing? Quinn, or shall I call him, Auster, is hired to follow Stillman to make sure he doesn’t kill his son, Peter. Quinn finds him (and his twin, mysteriously) in Grand Central, and follows him daily, through his mundane routine. It’s almost as if Quinn is having an out-of-body experience and is watching himself. He records everything about Stillman in his red notebook, but after 13 days he tells Vivian he is bored and wants to give up. Of course he doesn’t retire, but I find it very comical that Quinn is subjected to consciously following Stillman daily, through his boring walk, when he, himself, has the same ritual for when he is Quinn (William Wilson?) and not Paul Auster.
Bryce Rubin
City of Glass Post II
Language continues to be a constant throughout this novel. During the first few chapters we saw Peter Stillman locked in a room and a hospital for many years. His father hoping that he would learn the language of God, or a unified language. We are now starting to see the affects of this bizarre situation. During Chapter six in particular we see Quinn and Peter talking and Peter is reading chapters and verses from the book of Genisis in the bible. Peter believes that the story of the “Garden of Eden”, and “The Tower of Babel” are both stories of how the unified language of God was disrupted.
Peter talks abut the story of the “Garden of Eden” and how when eve took a bite from the apple it severed all language from God. It is described that Language before that, was interchangeable with the things the names represented. Unity was the best word to describe things before the apple was eaten. With the bite from the apple came “good”, and “evil” with this separation came the separation of language. The same was the case with the “Tower of Babel”. The tower represented unity amongst the people and unity amongst the people with God. With this came the same outcome when the tower fell. The disruption of God’s language came about again.
Auster’s clearly displaying his thoughts about language and what he believes happened to language over time. With all the talk of language and symbols I think we can see that Auster felt very strongly about structuralism.
After reading these chapters Auster’s use of language is clearly to show us that language is supposed to be unified. We are not supposed to have multiple meanings to our language. The use of these bible stories are in my opinion Auster’s attempt at showing us that language was once what it was supposed to be and it is not now.
City of Glass
Bri Fowle
When Quinn/Auster traced the routes of Stillman and it came out to be letters spelling out “owerofbab,” or “The Tower of Babel,” I thought it was very odd and kind of unlikely. How did Quinn/Auster think to trace the routes out? How can someone be that tirelessly thorough about a person? I was wondering how Stillman could not have noticed someone following him for weeks, until Quinn/Auster finally approached Stillman three different times, and he didn’t seem to recognize him at all any of the times. I thought it was interesting how we got so much information from those encounters about Stillman. I had suspected that Dark was made up or something by the way that no one had ever heard of him, and how all of these weird things happened to him. Only one of his children lived past infancy, and he ended up dying in a fall, and then his house and all but one of his pamphlets went up in flames and Stillman found the only copy left in existence. All of that put together sounded very unlikely. The fact that he presented his story that way makes me think that he was pretty much insane when he wrote it and it really only made sense to him. The notion that he is insane is very much influenced by the fact that he locked up his son in a completely dark room for 9 years, hoping that he would learn “God’s language.”
When Quinn/Auster traced the routes of Stillman and it came out to be letters spelling out “owerofbab,” or “The Tower of Babel,” I thought it was very odd and kind of unlikely. How did Quinn/Auster think to trace the routes out? How can someone be that tirelessly thorough about a person? I was wondering how Stillman could not have noticed someone following him for weeks, until Quinn/Auster finally approached Stillman three different times, and he didn’t seem to recognize him at all any of the times. I thought it was interesting how we got so much information from those encounters about Stillman. I had suspected that Dark was made up or something by the way that no one had ever heard of him, and how all of these weird things happened to him. Only one of his children lived past infancy, and he ended up dying in a fall, and then his house and all but one of his pamphlets went up in flames and Stillman found the only copy left in existence. All of that put together sounded very unlikely. The fact that he presented his story that way makes me think that he was pretty much insane when he wrote it and it really only made sense to him. The notion that he is insane is very much influenced by the fact that he locked up his son in a completely dark room for 9 years, hoping that he would learn “God’s language.”
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Women of Detective Fiction
Here again we have another interesting role played by a women. In the first section of City of Glass Auster introduces Mrs. Stillman whom is the wife of Mr. Stillman, a man who had a troubled childhood thanks to his father which handicapped him both in mental and physical ways. Mr. Stillman’s character is interesting enough but Mrs. Stillman is who stood out to me, especially when I compare this work to the detective/ noir works that we looked at thus far.
Mrs. Stillman comes across write out of that gate as a strong, independent, respected woman, who is the rock that holds Mr. Stillman together. She seems to be in charge and the mastermind of the plan to protect or to do what we think is protecting Mr. Stillman from his father, the root of all his problems in the first place. I find my self wondering, as I read, what the significance of this woman playing such a dominant role is. She, like many of the other women we have met in our studies thus far, is mysterious, mischievous, they make you want so bad to trust them but for some reason I just don’t.
Also, I am curious to know what significance, if any, the kiss that Mrs. Stillman gives Quinn as he is leaving their house. I wonder if this theme will play out more as I continue to read tonight or if she uses this against Quinn to manipulate him in a certain way; I’m not sure were Auster is going with this, I just find it interesting that in every story we have covered has had some situation were a women, most often not known by detective/ protagonist previous to the investigation, and thus far each any every one has had something to do with the cause of the entire situation that is being investigated. Interesting isn’t it? Or maybe it’s not so interesting, maybe a lack of originality? Or maybe, just maybe it is the sing of a great piece of art within the noir/ detective genre. I will choose to with hold my final judgment until I have had more experience with the genre, time/ one more novel, will tell me more.
Mrs. Stillman comes across write out of that gate as a strong, independent, respected woman, who is the rock that holds Mr. Stillman together. She seems to be in charge and the mastermind of the plan to protect or to do what we think is protecting Mr. Stillman from his father, the root of all his problems in the first place. I find my self wondering, as I read, what the significance of this woman playing such a dominant role is. She, like many of the other women we have met in our studies thus far, is mysterious, mischievous, they make you want so bad to trust them but for some reason I just don’t.
Also, I am curious to know what significance, if any, the kiss that Mrs. Stillman gives Quinn as he is leaving their house. I wonder if this theme will play out more as I continue to read tonight or if she uses this against Quinn to manipulate him in a certain way; I’m not sure were Auster is going with this, I just find it interesting that in every story we have covered has had some situation were a women, most often not known by detective/ protagonist previous to the investigation, and thus far each any every one has had something to do with the cause of the entire situation that is being investigated. Interesting isn’t it? Or maybe it’s not so interesting, maybe a lack of originality? Or maybe, just maybe it is the sing of a great piece of art within the noir/ detective genre. I will choose to with hold my final judgment until I have had more experience with the genre, time/ one more novel, will tell me more.
City of Glass Post 1
City of Glass is a complete contrast to the Big Sleep in so many different ways. For instance, the characters are so different compared to the Big Sleep. Auster introduction of the Main character Quinn is that he has an alter ego and uses several chapters to explain his identity and the possible reasons behind this alter ego. However, Marlow from the Big Sleep was more of a mystery and all you really knew about his personal life was his obsession with his work. Even though there are differences between how both authors portray their characters what makes this book interesting to me is the inclusion of the author himself in the book through the character Peter Stillman.
This notion is an intriguing one, as I have not read many books where the author is seen through two visions himself as the author and a character he makes up in his book. Not only this but how in an indirect way he has more than one author explaining the book , it intrigues me to see how the book might unfolded. Therefore, the reason why I like this book a lot more than the Big Sleep was that it is a typical murder mystery novel where the outcome can be easily predicated. However, the City of Glass is not, it does not really have a detective; there is also no main theme behind the book, so this in a way adds to the mystery and suspense of what might happen later in the book.
Pranav Shankla
This notion is an intriguing one, as I have not read many books where the author is seen through two visions himself as the author and a character he makes up in his book. Not only this but how in an indirect way he has more than one author explaining the book , it intrigues me to see how the book might unfolded. Therefore, the reason why I like this book a lot more than the Big Sleep was that it is a typical murder mystery novel where the outcome can be easily predicated. However, the City of Glass is not, it does not really have a detective; there is also no main theme behind the book, so this in a way adds to the mystery and suspense of what might happen later in the book.
Pranav Shankla
City of Glass
It seems all the books and movies we read and watch all have the same framework for the plot. "Chinatown" and The Big Sleep are similar in that they are both mysteries set in the past in L.A. Both cases start out small, infidelity and blackmail, and unfold into murder mysteries. Both involve a some what disturbed woman behind everything. This is also true of Brick, except that it is set in modern day times with high school kids. The main characters in all three of these works are similar too: 3 detectives who are confident and smooth talking to get what they need. They will do what it takes to solve the case.
In The City of Glass however, there are differences between these stories. City of Glass is told in third person rather than first like in The Big Sleep. The main character is different than any we have seen before. Quinn is a writer, not a detective. He has alter egos and is not as confident as the others. These are all the differences I have noted thus far in my reading of the City of Glass.
In The City of Glass however, there are differences between these stories. City of Glass is told in third person rather than first like in The Big Sleep. The main character is different than any we have seen before. Quinn is a writer, not a detective. He has alter egos and is not as confident as the others. These are all the differences I have noted thus far in my reading of the City of Glass.
6/29/09
In beginning to read, City of Glass, I have found the book to be quite intriguing, yet odd. Auster’s writing style is very vulgar and straightforward, especially at points you would least expect. I found myself having to stop at times and actually consider if I had just read some of the words that were written on the page. I don’t know if he has a dry sense of humor or that he showing a complete parallel to his personality. The most disheartening part about this book, that has captured my attention, is the quite prolific mentioning of child torture and isolation. But most importantly, the growth of “natural language,” that was briefly mentioned. I have an interest in child psychology and growth and I have found this topic to be quite fascinating and informing. I found that City of Glass, unlike The Big Sleep, pulls on the heartstrings of its readers. There is a more emotional connection found by the main character, Quinn, which is not seen by Marlowe. Maybe, it is because of his great loss he endured in loosing his wife and child. You can see that it is quite apparent that the loss of his child has taken such a drastic deterioration of his well-being and sanity. At the very end of the reading you feel closer and sympathetic to the main character when he informs you of his own child’s name, its relations to the man he is trying to save, and his perspective of the situation through the end of his son’s life.
-Erin L.
-Erin L.
6/29/09
The thing that strikes me the most different between City of Glass and The Big Sleep is the difference of narration. Changing from first person to third is really something else. The beginning of this novel really had me thinking, an author, writing about an author, discussing how an author really writes about their own thoughts, while making the main character pretend to be author is pretty mind blowing. Not to mention the three (or four including Paul Auster [which is really two for the author and the character]) personalities the main character has. I think that Auster also displays his beliefs through Peter Stillman, and I think he will continue to do so. As from what I can tell so far, Stillman and Quinn are pretty similar, even if Stillman is a crazy experiment. Quinn seems to be just as crazy, only has better social skills. Which may be really only his acting skills, because at this point of the book, we’ve only seen him interact with someone pretending to be someone else, someone who is supposed to be sane, and respectable.
So far there has been a lot less plot in the City of Glass, and a lot more discussion, although there have been a lot of the same issues; sex, drugs, money, murder… Although the plot seems relatively different in the fact that the father is the issue, as opposed to in The Big Sleep where they are trying to protect the father.
-Monica
So far there has been a lot less plot in the City of Glass, and a lot more discussion, although there have been a lot of the same issues; sex, drugs, money, murder… Although the plot seems relatively different in the fact that the father is the issue, as opposed to in The Big Sleep where they are trying to protect the father.
-Monica
Post 6/29
Chinatown has started off in a pattern that has become indicitive of the other detective stories we have examined. Furthermore, the character, Phillip Marlowe, from The Big Sleep seems to precede the design of Jack Nicholson's character. But the division between the two is slight. Nicholson plays a hardened private-eye who seems to share both Marlowe's recklessness and his lack of concern for making a positive impression on people. They also share a similar history of police work, and one gets the feeling that [Nicholson] too had a falling out with his former employers' methods. For both of these cahracters, tender moments are slighted in favor of obtaining pertinent information. They approach their work with a cold professionalism and logic that is indicitive of all the detectives we have studied thus far.
City of Glass, however, seems to have a different feel. I must admit that I am thrown right off the bat. Auster seems to be fond of vulgarities that make the reader feel slightly awkward. To me, if one is going to be vulgar in writing it should be to illustrate a particularly colorful point, not merely to embelish the story. I really don't need to hear about this guy's turds. I am also curious as to where Auster is going with the introduction of his own name into the story. I had to reread that passage and flip back to the cover several times before I was convinced that my brain wasn't playing tricks on me. So far, this book rubs me the wrong way.
-Jason
City of Glass, however, seems to have a different feel. I must admit that I am thrown right off the bat. Auster seems to be fond of vulgarities that make the reader feel slightly awkward. To me, if one is going to be vulgar in writing it should be to illustrate a particularly colorful point, not merely to embelish the story. I really don't need to hear about this guy's turds. I am also curious as to where Auster is going with the introduction of his own name into the story. I had to reread that passage and flip back to the cover several times before I was convinced that my brain wasn't playing tricks on me. So far, this book rubs me the wrong way.
-Jason
City of Glass
Bri Fowle
City of Glass, so far, is very odd. What struck me as the most interesting so far is that Quinn and the author seem to possibly be similar. Quinn lost his family, so he became somewhat of a robot. He just went through the actions of living and lost his sense of purpose in life. He didn’t feel anything anymore. He wrote mystery novels under a pseudonym, and only then did he feel some sense of being alive. He related more to his pseudonym and his main character in his book than he did to himself. When he got the call for Paul Auster, he became yet another person besides himself. I think that because of what happened to his family, whatever it was, he could only relate to the outside world through other characters. The reason I say that the author and Quinn could be similar is the fact that Auster uses his own name in the book. Maybe he is living vicariously through the main character of his book, similar to Quinn. I wonder if Auster is loosely based on Quinn at all, has had some of the same life experiences, or has been in the same situations that Quinn has. It kind of makes sense, in a weird sort of way. Another thing that I thought was interesting is the fact that Quinn only writes mystery novels, and to him, he doesn’t even do that, William Wilson does. So why when Peter calls for Auster does Quinn say that he is Auster and he will take the case?
City of Glass, so far, is very odd. What struck me as the most interesting so far is that Quinn and the author seem to possibly be similar. Quinn lost his family, so he became somewhat of a robot. He just went through the actions of living and lost his sense of purpose in life. He didn’t feel anything anymore. He wrote mystery novels under a pseudonym, and only then did he feel some sense of being alive. He related more to his pseudonym and his main character in his book than he did to himself. When he got the call for Paul Auster, he became yet another person besides himself. I think that because of what happened to his family, whatever it was, he could only relate to the outside world through other characters. The reason I say that the author and Quinn could be similar is the fact that Auster uses his own name in the book. Maybe he is living vicariously through the main character of his book, similar to Quinn. I wonder if Auster is loosely based on Quinn at all, has had some of the same life experiences, or has been in the same situations that Quinn has. It kind of makes sense, in a weird sort of way. Another thing that I thought was interesting is the fact that Quinn only writes mystery novels, and to him, he doesn’t even do that, William Wilson does. So why when Peter calls for Auster does Quinn say that he is Auster and he will take the case?
First City of Glass Post
So far City of Glass has a very different tone than The Big Sleep. In some ways City of Glass is very realistic, for example the scene where the mysterious caller calls Quinn for the second time and Quinn is in the rest room. Despite a certain level of realism the book, at least in the first five chapters, doesn’t read as if it were meant to be in the realistic style. Nor does it fall under modernism, although it occasionally seems almost stream-of-consciousness. I can’t quite pinpoint what makes the tone of City of Glass so vastly different from the tone of The Big Sleep; I don’t think I’ve read enough of the book yet. However, the differences between Quinn and Marlowe might begin to account for some of the difference in the feel of the books. Marlowe is very self assured, fully trained and competent as a detective and has little or no background. Quinn, on the other hand, is a mystery writer not a detective, he is timid and introverted, has a rich background history and might have multiple personalities. Quinn has two alter egos, Wilson, his pen name, and Work, the main character in his mystery novels, and he seems to be adding a third, Paul Auster. I am very interested to see how Paul Auster will fit into the plot of the book. It is very intriguing that the author of City of Glass chose to include himself in the story.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
Detectives
Already the book City of Glass is vastly different from The Big Sleep. One of the major differences I have noticed deals with the depth in which each author goes into character descriptions. In City of Glass, Auster goes into depth describing his main characters, as opposed to Chandler who gives brief snippets of information, often times making it harder to remember who was who. Auster, within the first chapter, tells us about Quinn, the main character and accidental detective’s, life. We learn that his family is dead and that he is a writer who publishes under a pseudonym, William Wilson. Quinn has deep emotional issues. Quinn wishes to escape his life, which is what allows himself to forget about himself and essentially “become” William Wilson. Quinn is so consumed with his fiction that he takes on the qualities of his detective character, Max Work, and lives as though he would. This is what leads him to take on the case as he does that night he receives the fateful call from Peter Stillman. Chandler does not bring us into the personal life of Marlowe. We don’t know if he has a family, we don’t know about his personality or anything about him outside of the Sternwood case. He is a mystery in himself, and that helps to detach him from the crime he is trying to uncover. Marlowe is also a detective by profession, whereas Quinn stumbled upon the gig by way of a phone call to the wrong number.
I am interested to read on and I attribute that to Auster’s writing style. Judging from only the first 5 chapters, I can already tell that I will enjoy this book more than The Big Sleep. Auster’s characters are much more interesting and I attribute that the detail in his character descriptions. I understand that Chandler didn’t want us to be emotionally tied to Marlowe for that would ruin his hero-like qualities, however, I believe getting to know a character on a more personal level invests the reading into wanting them to succeed, and thus following more carefully their journey.
Bryce Rubin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)