China Melville has a very scientific style of writing. He writes like how people write for newspapers, describing every bit of information to the smallest detail so the viewer can draw their own opinion. What makes three moments of an explosion unique are the stories that Melville tells. He brings about incredibly fantastical and crazy problems to the normal, modern world. In one story, there are huge icebergs that hover above London. In another, there are playing cards in a deck of cards that appear to the players at random all around the world. So these out-of-the-ordinary situations are described as scientifically and accurate as possible, trying to grasp and understand the crazy situations that happen. It reminds me of Murakami's style in A Wild Sheep Chase. The author is taking a stance of indifference and wants the viewer to take things casually as they are happening. It seems like this is the style these days, since both of these books are written by great authors of our century. It makes me think about the internet and how maybe that has aided in disconnecting people from one another.
But the way these stories are written doesn't make it sound like a bad thing. I actually really enjoy reading these books because of the style (maybe Sheep Chase more, because the indifference comes from a character and not an unknown speaker. That could spark another topic of conversation, but I don't think I want to head there.).
What I don't like about the book stems a little from that though. A lot of the short stories are written from such a distance that a story seems almost unimportant and boring. It feels like the author just wrote some of these stories to explore a "what-if" idea. Not all of them, granted, but a lot. I just wish he had given a little more care to the character side of things, even if it would be hard considering how he'd have to take that "indifferent" feeling into it.
Saturday, February 4, 2017
3. A Wild Sheep Chase
A Wild Sheep Chase struck me as a very communist book. No character has an actual name. If any, people are given nicknames (like Rat, or the Boss). The only one to be given a name was the main characters dog, and that moment ended up being a very magical occasion because of the naming. Also, the main character of the book is always indifferent towards the events that are happening around him. As is described in the early pages of the book by his female partner: he's a man who wants to be boring. Even when he's taken to the Boss and is thrown into a crazy adventure to find the sheep with a star on its back, he never loses his mind. He always takes things at face value and therefore, it lets him see things clearly. This seems to be a common motif throughout the story, being able to see the truth of things by not letting every day trivial things distract you. This idea is strengthened by the book the main character keeps reading, Sherlock Holmes.
Another theme the book touches on is obsession. The main character obsesses over his girlfriend's ears. The boss's assistant and anyone who is touched by the sheep obsesses over the sheep. It provides a neat contrast between the obsessiveness and the level-headedness of them all. The contrast brings about some disconnection between the reader and the characters, but I think this was on purpose. It was the author's way of telling the reader not to take what's happening so seriously. Again, bringing that communistic philosophy into the tone of the book.
Another theme the book touches on is obsession. The main character obsesses over his girlfriend's ears. The boss's assistant and anyone who is touched by the sheep obsesses over the sheep. It provides a neat contrast between the obsessiveness and the level-headedness of them all. The contrast brings about some disconnection between the reader and the characters, but I think this was on purpose. It was the author's way of telling the reader not to take what's happening so seriously. Again, bringing that communistic philosophy into the tone of the book.
2. Interview With The Vampire
Interview with a Vampire is a fun book just on structural terms. I think the idea of a whole book being an interview was a really smart choice from Anne Rice. It's the same as using letters in Frankenstein, where it puts the reader right in the story using a relatable situation. From there, the audience is right on board with whatever happens to the character.
What strikes me as most interesting from the book is the relationship between Louis and Lestat, the vampire that turned Louis himself into a vampire. At the beginning, Luis is attracted to Lestat's way of living. But when he turns, he starts realizing what a horrible person Lestat is. And he starts seeing him as an animal without any morals because of how he feeds on other human beings. The funny thing is that Louis himself has the same desires as Lestat. He just decides to struggle with it and makes the conscious effort to not attack other people. But he's never rewarded for it, so it creates a very interesting portrayal of the human condition-- how people try so hard to be nice, but never get anything out of it.
Throughout the story (bear in mind, I haven't finished it), Louis and Lestat try to fit in with the common people around them. And yet, they're these horrible monsters with a virus-like condition. I feel like, looking at the story from this point of view, it also provides a look at how bad people (convicts and the like) can live in our society without our even noticing. That might be why vampires scare us so much, because not only can they live in our world, but they might be the people we sit next to in class or during lunch. Anne Rice goes the positive route and makes them be caught by the servants of the house they were staying at.
What strikes me as most interesting from the book is the relationship between Louis and Lestat, the vampire that turned Louis himself into a vampire. At the beginning, Luis is attracted to Lestat's way of living. But when he turns, he starts realizing what a horrible person Lestat is. And he starts seeing him as an animal without any morals because of how he feeds on other human beings. The funny thing is that Louis himself has the same desires as Lestat. He just decides to struggle with it and makes the conscious effort to not attack other people. But he's never rewarded for it, so it creates a very interesting portrayal of the human condition-- how people try so hard to be nice, but never get anything out of it.
Throughout the story (bear in mind, I haven't finished it), Louis and Lestat try to fit in with the common people around them. And yet, they're these horrible monsters with a virus-like condition. I feel like, looking at the story from this point of view, it also provides a look at how bad people (convicts and the like) can live in our society without our even noticing. That might be why vampires scare us so much, because not only can they live in our world, but they might be the people we sit next to in class or during lunch. Anne Rice goes the positive route and makes them be caught by the servants of the house they were staying at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)