http://ferny-nandez.blogspot.com/
In this blog, Isabelle Fernandez talks about It's Kind of a Funny Story. Or, to be more specific, the idea that it brings up. She talks about how she only likes the book because the end of the ending, the last page even, makes everything else better. She relates this to Shakespeare's play, All's Well that Ends Well. At the very end, she questions the reality in this theory. Sure for movies and sometimes books, everything is forgiven and the happiness is restored in the ending, but not in true life.
One reason I like this post is the following: Half way through reading It's Kind of a Funny Story, I stopped. I got bored with it, and put it back on the shelf. Maybe I should've continued? If the god part is at the end, it's like I just missed a finally leaving train after waiting for it forever! Isabelle has me tempted to go pick it up again, just to see what happens on the last page.
Another reason I like this blog post, is because of the relation to Shakespeare. Isabelle Fernandez says that just the title of this play brings up the question of whether a great end to a story makes up for the bad beginning. In my opinion, it can in stories. It does all the time, and the stories are still generally good. But not in reality. Isabelle says that it happens in reality, but "doesn't erase the unhappy event entirely."
I agree.
When a person is unlucky, and has a tough life and gets a good break? That's an all's well that ends well.
When two people are fighting, and make up? That's an all's well that ends well.
When the quality of anything increases, that's an all's well that ends well.
But In reality, these should be called..... all's Well that ends well... then ends badly.
Most times, Isabelle is right. Just because it may seem like everything is okay, that previous events probably aren't totally made up or. They needed to be made up for for a reason, and they can't just magically be made all better.
In conclusion, I just totally agree with Isabelle Fernandez.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A Fraction of the Whole- Philosophy
Something mentioned that plays a huge part of the book? Philosophy. Martin Dean, Harry West, and I believe Jasper Dean have all been referred to as philosophers, because they are. This is the author's, Steve Toltz, way if saying "hey, I'm a philosopher." By expressing it through his characters. All three of these characters produce critical views based of both fact and things they just assume.
Martin Dean is by far the most pessimistic. He'll observe things he doesn't like and is not afraid to just talk about what he thinks. Bu he's not usually mean about it, just blunt. A lot of the time he's honestly trying to help- although he often spirals into confusing tangents when he gives speeches, if you get them they're really helpful and informing. He gives constructive criticism, and it works, if you just follow his suggestions. You see, Martin likes things that are hard to solve, and complicated. He likes them, because he can solve them.
Jasper Dean, Martins son, is much different. Jasper is one who likes more simplicity in his situations. He never understands his fathers speeches, but he still is a philosopher. I think that if you have philosophical thoughts, and have mounds of though and opinion, you just don't share them, they can still count as a philosopher.
Last, there's Harry West. He has complex, real thoughts of what to do in order to succeed. Even though his thoughts leads him into negative things like murder and crime, he still thinks optimistically. You can tell him anything, and he would go on rants explaining the pro's and con's of that theory.
I think you can conclude that Steve Toltz does express his many opinions through his characters, especially Martin, Jasper, and Harry.
Martin Dean is by far the most pessimistic. He'll observe things he doesn't like and is not afraid to just talk about what he thinks. Bu he's not usually mean about it, just blunt. A lot of the time he's honestly trying to help- although he often spirals into confusing tangents when he gives speeches, if you get them they're really helpful and informing. He gives constructive criticism, and it works, if you just follow his suggestions. You see, Martin likes things that are hard to solve, and complicated. He likes them, because he can solve them.
Jasper Dean, Martins son, is much different. Jasper is one who likes more simplicity in his situations. He never understands his fathers speeches, but he still is a philosopher. I think that if you have philosophical thoughts, and have mounds of though and opinion, you just don't share them, they can still count as a philosopher.
Last, there's Harry West. He has complex, real thoughts of what to do in order to succeed. Even though his thoughts leads him into negative things like murder and crime, he still thinks optimistically. You can tell him anything, and he would go on rants explaining the pro's and con's of that theory.
I think you can conclude that Steve Toltz does express his many opinions through his characters, especially Martin, Jasper, and Harry.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
A Fraction of the Whole... Still
A fraction of the whole is a very complex book. It's like many small stories, forced into one complicated long novel. It includes murder, and hospitals, mental asylums, parisian bars, suicide, and lots, LOTS of philosophy. But even though it includes all of this, the characters are still very-well described and the author makes you feel like you can predict them, but they always surprise you.
For one Martin, the main characters dad, (although the books about him almost as much as his son) doesn't seem to express any visible emotion. His brother died. After murdering dozens of people, he gets burnt up in fire, miserably in prison. His parents die, in the same fire as his brother. His role model and close friend jumps off a bridge in the midst of an argument with Martin. A close friend had a heart attack and died, and after giving birth to their son, his wife kills herself by jumping on a boat and exploding herself. This all seems very overwhelming for the reader. But Martin didn't lose a tear.
That is, he didn't lose a tear then. But once his baby son grew into a boy, and they live miserably and without meaning, all the tears he never used catch up. When he's on the brink of cracking full-blown into his insanity, it's waterfalls. Every night and day he's crying, crying, crying. He attempts (weakly) to hide it from his son, Jasper, and fools himself into thinking he's happy. But that's really not the way to live. It would be horrible to not really be happy, but just pretend to be for the sake of not having to face your problems. But what are his problems?
Why is he crying now? What, he couldn't waste his tears on the tragic deaths of loved ones, but when his life is in the ruins he cries? I don't think so. This makes him come off as conceited, and really he's not at all. He doesn't think much of himself, and he knows his life is messed up, so I believe ha has the right to cry. But I think his tears mean more than sadness. They represent an ending.
After each death, he knew there was more to his life. He was still young when those happened, but even though his life sucked, he knew there were places to visit, people to meet, and things to do. And he could be happy again. But after Anouk comes into Martin and Jaspers life years later, criticizing everything about them, he knew he had to change his life. But he couldn't. He hit rock bottom, and he knew it.
For one Martin, the main characters dad, (although the books about him almost as much as his son) doesn't seem to express any visible emotion. His brother died. After murdering dozens of people, he gets burnt up in fire, miserably in prison. His parents die, in the same fire as his brother. His role model and close friend jumps off a bridge in the midst of an argument with Martin. A close friend had a heart attack and died, and after giving birth to their son, his wife kills herself by jumping on a boat and exploding herself. This all seems very overwhelming for the reader. But Martin didn't lose a tear.
That is, he didn't lose a tear then. But once his baby son grew into a boy, and they live miserably and without meaning, all the tears he never used catch up. When he's on the brink of cracking full-blown into his insanity, it's waterfalls. Every night and day he's crying, crying, crying. He attempts (weakly) to hide it from his son, Jasper, and fools himself into thinking he's happy. But that's really not the way to live. It would be horrible to not really be happy, but just pretend to be for the sake of not having to face your problems. But what are his problems?
Why is he crying now? What, he couldn't waste his tears on the tragic deaths of loved ones, but when his life is in the ruins he cries? I don't think so. This makes him come off as conceited, and really he's not at all. He doesn't think much of himself, and he knows his life is messed up, so I believe ha has the right to cry. But I think his tears mean more than sadness. They represent an ending.
After each death, he knew there was more to his life. He was still young when those happened, but even though his life sucked, he knew there were places to visit, people to meet, and things to do. And he could be happy again. But after Anouk comes into Martin and Jaspers life years later, criticizing everything about them, he knew he had to change his life. But he couldn't. He hit rock bottom, and he knew it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)