Read the interview with Foer found at http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/personalities/birnbaum_v_jonathan_safran_foer.php
What aspects of the interview do you find noteworthy? Try to respond to specific sections of the interview, as well as comment on how reading a conversation with an author enhances or challenges your reading of a novel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
Mr. Webb,
I tried to access the interview following that link, but it wouldn't let me on without a username and password. I tired my parent portal info and school id as well as the blog account settings but it wouldn't budge.
Please help,
Olga
Solved--you can get to it now. Sorry.
After reading the interview I noticed the compelling statements the author makes and I came to realize that this he is the mastermind behind the entire book- Oskar, the grandmother, Thomas, [the renter], Thomas Schell, the mother, and ultimately the creativity, and emotions Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close conveys. Quite honestly I saw a lot of the blunt qualities Oskar possesses in that of Jonathon Safran Foer. As the interviewer begins with the question about music I find myself asking what it has to do with the book he has written. Soon I realize that this author is truly a creative genius. He is not stuck in the common mind of other people or the pop culture many of us strive to follow. The music he listens to symbolizes a piece of him and really shows his character. Conor Oberst- I have never heard of him, and Jonathon Safran Foer says his music is most likely not played on the radio. My guess would be that the artist must have something truly unique to say if an author with as much depth as Jonathan Safran Foer is claiming him as his favorite artist, event though the music is not catchy. Music is part of his inspiration.
Jonathon Safran Foer seems so knowledgeable and like he sits back and examines the world and puts his thoughts on paper with nothing holding him back. He seems to be more of a philosopher than an author. Does this mean that it is he that wants a singing tea kettle or a talking anus- like Oskar suggests in the primary page of the book? Clearly Jonathon Safran Foer has and over active imagination. Perhaps this is what I admire most about him and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Even his analogy about emotions and a rock Jonathon Safran Foer talks about. He shows how different people view objects in action different ways. It says how somebody sees from a journalistic point of view and from a novelist’s point of view. It is clearly dependent on how the reader establishes the writing. To him, it is more than just words on a page that somebody is reading, its having something to say and being able to say it freely rather than responding to something somebody else heard or said. It is a whole new world that he can create and expound upon with his own imagination and thoughts.
In the open blog, I admitted that many things Oskar says seem too beyond his years. It wasn't that I thought he should have written it differently, for I figured it was obviously thought of, seeing that those certain lines jumped off the page from the rest of Oskar's thoughts. Now, after reading this interview with Foer, I understand the importance that his style withheld.
Foer, and his creative mind, didn't worry about creating a completely sound and realistic character, but rather a character relatable to others, and one that readers can pull for. Sure there are things that Oskar does and says that seem beyond his young life, but "Oskar is not real" (Foer). Foer wanted to distinguish that connection from a child character to any reader in the world. In the interview, Foer says, "sometimes you have to tell certain lies of reality in order to tell certain truths of emotion." Those certain truths of emotion are qualties that anyone in the world can withhold. Emotion is common, and that's why likeable characters do so well in books, especially when they are faced with tragedy. Readers pull for characters like Oskar.
I realized the importance of the artwork that Foer created. He went above and beyond with making connections to other people and simply offering a beautiful and captivating story. Sure "[t]here is no Oskar in the world," but "once the book is given to a reader, the effects become very, very real" (Foer). This interview made me appreciate Foer for creating something beyond just text, but something that latches on to you and is molded into memory.
In Jonathan Sarfran Foer's interveiw with Birnbaum he made some very thought provoking statements which I found very unique to his style of writing. One of the concepts I found extremely interesting was the image of the rock being thrown into the water. Foer states that there is the journalistic point of veiw and the novelistic point of veiw. A journalist would be looking at the literal aspects of the rock (size, weight, etc) while a novelist would focus more on the "real world" effects. In this analogy he states that Oskar is a rock, an un-real object, is causing ripples which are a very real effect. His novel is affected by this notion that he can use an unreal object to touch peoples lives. He uses Oskar, someone who doesnt exist, to reach out to others.
Another idea i found compelling is theory that there are trully two authors to the book. There is the author of the book, and there is the reader. Foer states "a book is customized for each person" and i find this especially true. When someone reads a book each and everyone hears the voice differently and everyone takes something different from the reading. I beleive that is his basis for the thought " [All] books aren’t for everybody." Foer veiws his books as art that is free for everyone to take what they will unlike music. Music is fairly straight forward and has one meaning. Literature however, it is up to reader to decipher the meaning and decide what they think the author is trying to tell them.
In this interview between Jonathan Safran Foer and Birnbaum, I saw how much JSF is reflected in Oskar, even when he said that's not how it is.
JSF says how he can't remember how he was as a 9 year old, but his parents tell him how he was a very stubborn child. On page 43, Oskar's mom is saying how Oskar is just like his dad, very definitive, and not wanting to change his answers or his feelings much; pretty stubborn.
I also saw Oskar in JSF when he says "If you see a beautiful drawing you want to put it on your wall or you want to take a photograph of it." This reminded me of Oskar's book of pictures and things that have happened to him. When he's with Abby Black, he sees a picture of an elephant on the wall and says he Loves it, and wants to take a picture of it.
Finally, JSF says that "things are shot at you like food... But then sometimes you find them for other reasons."
This gave me the thought of Oskar and the key. Oskar might not have gone on a mission to find where it came from if he hadn't found the key in his dad's closet. If he had found the key on the side of the road, or if someone had handed it to him, it wouldn't have been as important, and he wouldn't of found it for a reason.
First off, I just would like to say I found the interview with Foer extremely entertaining and illuminating.
The comments made back and forth about the film industry, and the money makers were really interesting because that really is how our society views them, and we do enjoy the ones who aren't " greedy swine or short-fingered vulgarians"(RB). I could really see JSF personality through Oskar when he states that everyone has a roles to play, and the trick is not to get them confused, and not to believe that one part is above the rest, " It's very tepmting to attribute to much weight to one kind of person over another(Foer). Oskar has so many roles, and I believe that is a huge sub-theory in this book; his journey to find out all the roles he plays, and how everyone in the world are equally important and interconnected with something to offer. This reminds me of one of his simple talks with his father about how and why people exist and what our purposes are, while it ends in laughter the question is still brought up, and thats all it takes (86). and his decision afterward, where he decided to meet every person with the last name Black in New York, "even if it was insignificant, I needed to do something(87)."
This interview made many points which i found most intersting. JSF's point about journalists vs. novelist really opened my eyes to JSF's point of view on literature in general. It showed what he thought was important in a piece of writing and therefore what i should focus on when reading the novel. This will help me to better my understanding of this novel also by showing how Foer is approaching the story.
Foer also brought up another point which was very compelling. His statement that there are really always two authors to a book really got me thinking. Foer shows that the reader is just as vital to the story as he is, it shows that the story will be what the reader makes it.
The fact that Foer went to such great lengths to find a good agent and that he began his career purely for enjoyment shows me that he truly cares about his writng and the quality of his writng. a person who cares this much, in my opinion, will always make a much more interesting piece of literature.
As soon as I read this interview with Jonathan Safran Foer, I was able to understand why he wrote this book the way he did. When I was reading this book I never really understood why Foer created a character like Oskar. I think that writing a story about the tragic events of September 11 is something very hard to do without creating the common sad story of a kid dealing with someone’s death. Foer stepped out of this typical sad version and created a novel that is easy for the reader to interact as well as connect to. Foer remarks, “That’s the American version. It is, ‘This is what happened. There is good. There is evil. There are victims and there are victimizers. There are terrorists and civilians. There is war and there is peace. There are Arabs and non-Arabs.’ And that is not what the world is. The world is this incredibly complicated mix of perspectives and vantages and life experiences” (The Morning News Int.). He wrote in a way that gave the reader a different view of September 11 by inventing Oskar and his family. He introduces the real emotions that a normal 9 year old boy might experience. He adds uniqueness and his own style to this character which allows us as readers to get the full effect of this situation and be able to experience his journey with him. Fortunately, I did not experience the death of anyone close to me in the September 11th attacks which could ultimately make something like this harder to connect to; however, Foer’s detailed methods of writing this novel made me feel as though I was part of Oskar’s family. I felt like I was experiencing the pain Oskar was going through. To me, an author that is able to make a reader feel emotions is a great writer. Sarah said is perfectly when she said, “Soon I realize that this author is truly a creative genius. He is not stuck in the common mind of other people or the pop culture many of us strive to follow.” I admire Foer’s style of writing and believe that his thoughtful consideration in creating the character of Oskar made the book entertaining and easier to appreciate.
I found it interesting that he talks almost how he writes. He says at the beginning of the interview that writing is "the only chance in life, when I extemporaneously say whatever it is I want to say. In the way that I want to say it... Writing is the one thing in life when you are not responding." He just says what he thinks simply stated. This mirrors the book in the fact that the book is about people's thoughts and memories. JSF writes in his book about the memory of the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and also 9/11. These events are greatly remembered and tugs on the heart strings of many people.
The reader can easily relate to Oscar and other characters in the book because they understand the events that JSF writes about. JSF is truely a creative genius; he understands people's feelings and knows how to reflect that through his writing.
After reading the interview it is clear that Foer wants the readers to connect in some way to the events within the novel. Foer said that he wanted to write “something that you could really empathize with” and through his use of feelings in the novel he accomplishes this very task. As Brittany W points out, Foer discusses “ the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and also 9/11.” These three events involved numerous people, families and towns and therefore all of those that were involved understand the feelings that Foer is presenting and can connect with the novel’s characters in order to have a deeper understanding. For those that were not involved in these three days, Foer offers an incite as to the feelings of those that were included by his descriptions of the events and how in the end they effected people, like Oskar. Since Oskar lost a father, Foer wanted people to realize that Oskar does everything for a reason and that reason is to know more about his father. When Oskar lost his father he needed to understand more and therefore he set out on the adventure of finding the key.
Another interesting thing that I noticed in the interview was how Foer talked about the “complicated mix of perspectives and vantages and life experiences.” This made me think about all of the perspectives that Foer took when writing the novel. First there is Oskar. Then his grandma and grandpa. Then there is the views of all of the people that Oskar meets on his journey. Foer uses all of the different angles to show how much diversity there is in the world and how all sorts of people live together in New York. He uses the different vantage points and then in the end brings them all together to make his novel more complex and stronger.
I think that the intiamacy that is conveyed throughout this interview is absolutley marvelous. How Foer describes that, "the idea of an author is actually just a combination of two peoples" and how only when there is a balance between what a book shows and what it holds back can there be that perfect reader-author combination, creating a one of a kind novel for each and every person. Which is the exact feeling that I received when I read the chapter in which Oskar's dad was telling him the story of the sixth borough and how it was now in Antarctica. "There are frozen fountains in frozen neighborhood parks, where frozen children are frozen at the peaks of their swings"(222.) When I had read this line I sat there for a moment and thought about how the image of a little girl frozen in time on a swingset popped into my head rather vividly but how it was surely unidentical to the images that everyone else who had read that exact same line had imagined. The fact that Foer fully understood this bond between the book, the reader, and the literal author was rather refreshing, especially when paired with the idea that Foer seems to have the same relationship with books as he does with dogs, an intimate relationship that I have come to envy and that most have noted, to say the least.
This interview with Jonathan Safran Foer gave insight to his life and feelings about being a writer. I find that one of the significant aspects of the interview was when he talked about how everyone can be a writer and the definition of being successful. He says, “Everyone can be a writer. The problem is that everyone is concerned with the side that to be a successful writer is to be a writer who is selling lots of copies and is out there in the world”. This statement gives me the impression that Foer is a writer because he enjoys it and it is his passion in life. He also doesn’t seem to be caught up in being a successful writer earning lots of fame and fortune. Foer encourages high school students to be writers and to develop a love for being true to themselves in what they write. This reminds me of the part in the novel when Oskar’s grandmother talks about how Thomas didn’t like running the jewelry business and how he wanted to be a sculptor. He did not get any pleasure out of running the business; he just did it because it was his job. Oskar also has a conversation with his father about the family business and his father tells him “he is too smart for retail” (7). Oskar’s father wants Oskar to find a profession that he loves and a place where can use all of his talents and develop a passion. Anyone can run a jewelry store, but Oskar’s father wants him to find something more.
Rebbeca makes quite a good point when she mentions Foer's theory about the dual authorship of a novel. How, the story itself will change depending on the reader. In fact, her reaction to the Sixth Borough is exactly what Foer was depending on. later in the interview he mentions how an author must convey truth of emotion rather than truth of fact: "An analogy that I think fits is a rock that is thrown into a lake and then causes all these ripples. There is a journalistic way of looking at that—how big is the rock? How heavy is it? What is its mineral composition? And for a novelist, you think about the ripples that it causes. The rock in the case of a novel is a non-existent thing. Oskar is not real. There is no Oskar in the world. But once he is thrown into the lake, once the book is given to a reader, the effects become very, very real...It’s a real response to something that is unreal. So when I was creating Oskar—what makes Oskar, Oskar, is in one part all of his characteristics but in another part, the reader. You depend on the reader" (Foer). Sorry for the incredibly long quote but it was quite necessary to fully convey his point. Rebecca's emotional response to the Sixth Borough, her picturing a little girl frozen at the height of her swing is the ripple that Foer was depending on. For myself, I connected deeply with the mother when Oskar says, "If I could have chosen, I would have chosen you!" (171). This clearly was not a real situation but the emotion that I feel, and that I am sure many of my fellow bloggers feel, because of this scene is real. We are reacting in a real way to something that is not necessarily true. I have to draw an analogy to scary movies, how we jump even though we know it is simply a movie and there really is not a person waiting to kill the actress.
This interview brings Foer's reader closer to him and in effect closer to themselves because if one knows the other author of "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" he becomes closer to the novel and his reactions to the novel and therefore, himself.
In this interview, Foer makes such a big deal about the distinction between journalists and writers, but the way he writes his book sounds so much like a journalist summary (or a military report) that he sounded either like a complete hypocrite or just a very confused about what he wrote.
I say this because journalists report the facts while the writers sway our emotions. And this book was definitely more of a report (though a very muddled one).
For example:
If Foer wanted to show that “The world is this incredibly complicated mix of perspectives and vantages and life experiences. And when you write a book, you are able to concentrate on very, very specific things” than he shouldn’t have picked such a black/white character who really doesn’t see any shades of gray. Foer also says that it’s not true that there are just “terrorists and civilians, Arabs and non-Arabs . . . .the world is more complicated.” Having read the book, I have no idea why he says that; the book tells the typical story of a sad little boy who lost his father. Does it show perspective? Does it tell a different side of the story of 9/11? Nope.
Foer also says, “My intention was to create something that was believable. Something that you could really empathize with, someone whose journey you wanted to be along for.” (Foer) To me, he definitely failed there because Oskar is so different I couldn’t identify with him at all. It’s never made clear what exactly is wrong with him (autism?) but he is definitely not a normal person, so I a normal one would have difficulty relating to him. If Foer wanted to create a connection between Oskar and the reader, he shouldn’t have picked such a ‘unique’ personage. (Actually, except for Mom I couldn’t relate to any of the characters at all; there is a theme for you.)
The biggest problem I had with this book is that the writing style invoked almost no emotional response from me. I’ve read books that made me laugh and cry with the heroes; books that shocked or infuriated me—but this was a total blank. For example, after Oskar tells his mother that he would have chosen her (to die) and she walks out, we see the words EXTREMELY DEPRESSED crossed out and replaced with INCREDIBLY ALONE. (171) That’s all the emotional response that we get from Oskar. Pretty deprived, don’t you think? With better handling, this scene could have easily made me cry, but instead, just like most other scenes describing how Oskar feels, it just made me go “ Whatever, can we get on with the story?”
Finally, the constant jumps between points of view, time, and narration style completely threw me out of the story and I never really managed to get back in. It’s hard to relate to characters when you have no idea what is happening (or when it’s happening). Then again, who needs continuity when you can have pictures?
I guess it’s an interesting book, but in terms of the opportunity to tell the story about 9/11 Foer definitely bit off more than he could chew.
After leaving my first comment on this topic and after pondering the interview for a day, I have reached a whole new level of liking in regards to Foer's novel. When I was reading the book I indeed took note, as stated in my previous blog, of how there is just enough space for the reader to put their imagination to work and make the story their own without even realizing it. However, up until this point I did not fully appreciate how Foer worked so hard in order to make this happen, as shown to me through the interview.
"RB: Did you have to write 2,500 pages to get 300 pages for Everything is Illuminated? Was the proportion the same?
JSF: It was close. I think I wrote more.
RB: So that’s the way you do it."
That is indeed the way he does it, not only for Everything is Illuminated but obviously for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as well. I suppose that the reason I find this particular topic so intriguing is due to the fact that Foer worked so hard to "convey truth of emotion rather than truth of fact", as Keaton perfectly worded it, and I am just now realizing how that is exactly what made the book, in my opinion.
When I was reading the book I too noticed that Oskar was not what one woud consider a "typical" nine year old and how he often acted with mannerisms far beyond his years, as Collin talked about, but I did not comprehend why Foer would have such be the case, until now. It was simply a sacrafice, fact for emotion. The driving force behind this book and all it's greatness is indeed the emotion it holds, the intimacy that is available whithin it. It seems silly that I had not realized all of this prior to reading the interview but I am certainly glad that I did for I now have much more respect for Foer and all of the intricate relationships that he so perfectly lays out for his readers
The review with Foer reflects how passionate he is in his life and in his writing. I find him to be extraordinarily respectable and inspirational. It was particularly intriguing when he speaks of money people and non-money people. He explains, “What’s sad is when the jobs are confused and people who aren’t money people start thinking like money people and worry about things—like when the conversation become devalued with value.” Foer seems to polarize people into two categories: those who live for money and those who live for passion. The reason it is sad when these jobs are confused is because the resulting product, whatever it may be, is without passion. Perhaps profits are maximized but there is no soul in the product, nor is there artistic value. In fact, when the artist changes who he is and concedes to the majority purely out of greed, he ceases to be an artist at all. It’s a common theme in musicians—many alternative musicians especially. Most of the radio follows the latest trends and so do the artists. Perhaps it is progression, but it would seem that it is more rooted in greed. Consider the popular band Blink 182. Their new albums are far different from their old ones. They are more generic, more censored, more radio-friendly, less artistic, and more mainstream. Is this passion? Is this art? Foer makes the paradox that conversation is devalued with value. He is referring to the censorship of art for money. It ruins it. I love how Foer expresses his appreciation for the band Bright Eyes and Connor Oberst, the singer and songwriter from the band. He talks about how people compare him to Bob Dylan—who is more appreciated for his poetic verse than his questionable singing ability. I can see why Foer would appreciate artists such as Bob Dylan and Connor Oberst. I share the same interest. I love powerful and inspirational writing more than I do superb singing ability. Like Carly F, I loved his message that “everyone can be a writer.” Foer is the kind of person who seems like he would be passionate about writing even if he wasn’t recognized or famous. Foer is an artist in the most genuine and beautiful form.
Katie brings up and interesting idea when she says that “writing a story about the tragic events of September 11 is something very hard to do without creating the common sad story of a kid dealing with someone’s death.” In creating a story based on some specific tragic event, many authors attempt to personalize the event by focusing on a character. But it seems like these kinds of ‘tragedy fiction’ stories isolate the event and rely so much on broad generalizations and stereotypes about the time, place, and culture to create the character—as if by making the character general enough, he can embody the entirety of those affected by the event—that the story turns into a very distanced, almost factual account, the only difference from the news being that the ‘victims and their families’ are represented by a small set of characters. In this kind of story, all the emotion comes from the idea of the tragedy itself, not from specific characters, so that all the emotion is forced and artificial—observed rather than felt by the reader, and it becomes just a “common sad story.”
Olga says that she couldn’t relate to or connect with Oskar because he is so far from what we would consider ‘normal,’ and many people have said that Oskar wasn’t believable ad a normal nine year old, but I think Oskar is that way for a specific reason. The great part of the book is that it isn’t written so that every person that reads it will have something superficial in common with the character—Oskar doesn’t in any way represent every person in New York City. I think trying too hard to ‘relate’ to a character dulls the experience of reading about them. If the book was narrated by a character that was very similar to me, the reactions and feelings of the character would be sort of filtered through my memory, and again the emotion that is created would just seem general and recycled. But reading from Oskar’s point of view, the reactions and feelings aren’t constantly familiar, so the emotion is raw—you feel what he feels, not what you would feel.
There is a point in the interview, when Foer and Birnbaum discuss the way that the current “American version” of the story of September 11 is “absolutely certain” and oversimplified, where Foer kind of responds to the ‘common’ approach to writing about tragedy:
“RB: Well our heuristic paradigms, we don’t think we have learned anything unless we can immediately generalize it to ourselves and the world. And seemingly random stream of things doesn’t comfort anyone.
JSF: The generalizations become hollow. There are always people who can’t fall into them, and the specifics can resonate into having a kind of universal meaning.”
Foer writes in such a way that it could not be anyone other than his character Oskar in the story, that the combination of all of “seemingly random stream” of characteristics, thoughts, reactions, and habits are completely unique and specific to Oskar. Yet Foer connects this specific character to a “kind of universal meaning,” where there is a sense that if Oskar had lived in Dresden or Hiroshima or anywhere else, he would have been the same person and reacted in ways. The story is based on the character rather than the event. This universality without generalizations is the perfect representation of the Orhan Pamuk quote he mentions: “every book, at the end of the day is about showing how similar people are to one another. And how different they are from one another.”
All of the things that Elizabeth A. stated in her recent post were very interesting points and made me think about Oskar’s character. Oskar was created to show how one of the people from 9/11 reacted. His character may have some things that are not believable for nine year olds, but in the end the character is stronger because of how he is blunt, honest and the way that he presents himself. Foer created Oskar the way that he did for a reason. He gave Oskar obvious characteristics like being so adventurous and compassionate in order to show how Oskar would never give up the search for the key. He also made Oskar have an unusually high intelligence level for a nine year old. He wanted to show that Oskar understood the events that killed his father, but also wanted Oskar to be able to learn from them. Even though Oskar understood what happened, he is still young and innocent and therefore wants things to be different than they turned out. He wants his father to still be alive and incredibly close to him so that his father could protect him and they “would have been safe” (326).
My first response to Foer's interview, which is a very specific one, was when I came across the statement, "Writing is the one thing in life when you are not responding." It's probably not my place to disagree with the author that I'm studying, but when I read that I thought, isn't writing sort of like responding to life experiences? Since your experience is what molds and creates your work? But maybe he was being more on a literal level, and meaning more of a question and answer type of responding.... ?
I definitely felt like I could see a connection between Foer's humor during the interview and the humor throughout the book. I also noticed a similarity with the way he expresses deep ideas, although in the interview he makes it sound more... intellectual.
What strikes me so profoundly about this interview is the way that Foer envisions books to be read. He asserts:
“Really good books are books that have two authors, the reader and the writer. Or maybe the idea of an author is actually just a combination of two people, the reader and the writer? So when writing you use the word “tree.” Four letters. Very, very short word. Fits a couple millimeters on a page. But in the reader’s mind it becomes a kind of idealized version of a tree, and that tree is different for each person who reads the book and because of that a book is customized for each person in a way a song never could be and as a painting never could be.”
I fully agree with him here and see how he applies this philosophy to his novel which makes it such a powerful one. Adding to what Rebecca said about the line "[t]here are frozen fountains in frozen neighborhood parks, where frozen children are frozen at the peaks of their swings"(222), we all see that image in our heads. However, it is not possible that we would all follow the same train of thought. The line is descriptive and very visual, but it is also somewhat vague. Well, the reader could imagine any story that follows up to that if he wanted, and it is natural to do so because of the way that our minds flow and trail off when given just one word or line to ponder—that is what Foer knows and he gives us the chance to do that. (Think of the way that each person could visualize a tree or a swing set, as he says.) The way he applies this to the book is spectacular. Oskar is a very original character and Foer ultimately gives us the choice to view him how we like with what he gives us.
This is also seen in what Foer says was his intention for writing the story. He claims that his “intention was to create something that was believable. Something that you could really empathize with, someone whose journey you wanted to be along for.” With that line, it is clear that Foer wrote the novel with a very pure sort of purpose in mind. He didn’t want to write a historical satire or non-fiction piece, he just wanted to create a story that the reader could interact with. In my mind, it is a true gift that a writer could create such a piece with that intention at the forefront of his writing. For someone like Olga S who didn’t seem to like the novel or the way that Foer wrote it, that’s completely acceptable and okay. And for the others who did like the novel, that’s equally acceptable too. That’s the beauty of what Foer has produced here.
Elizabeth A says:
Trying too hard to ‘relate’ to a character dulls the experience of reading about them. If the book was narrated by a character that was very similar to me, the reactions and feelings of the character would be sort of filtered through my memory, and again the emotion that is created would just seem general and recycled. But reading from Oskar’s point of view, the reactions and feelings aren’t constantly familiar, so the emotion is raw—you feel what he feels, not what you would feel.
I do agree with her that the reader of the book should feel what the character feels—and therein lies the problem. My point is not that I don’t relate to Oskar’s emotions; my point is that those emotions just aren’t there. This method of writing is called ‘showing, not telling’. Oskar says that he is scared or angry or depressed, but there is just no support in the text for it. In fact, it’s only twice in the book that Oskar’s emotions jumped out at me—at the psychiatrist’s session and during school play, where we both get a glimpse into Oskar’s fantasies. Oskar says, “I pull the skull of my head. Even though it’s made of paper mache it’s really hard. I smash it against Jimmy Snyder’s head, and I smash it again.” (146) Now that’s emotion.
Elizabeth also says that you shouldn’t try too hard to relate to a character. I think you shouldn’t try at all—once you find out more about him, you will automatically feel closer. Usually, books are told from an omniscient, third person, point of view that lets the reader into the character’s head and turns the reader into an invisible part of the character. We know all the character knows and feels, and that brings us closer. This book, however, is told almost in the form of a diary, which means that we know only what Oskar chooses to reveal to us. This strategy marginalizes the reader making it hard for him to get into the story. Instead, we are constantly aware that we are an intruding third party and that alienates us from Oskar.
The point of all this rambling is that I never got the chance to know Oskar and because of that he feels rather unreal and shallow.
But if somebody prefers first person narration to third person, than I guess they would actually grow closer and really like Oskar. I guess it’s a personal preference.
Olga, you’re right that it is just a personal preference, and I can see how you would have trouble seeing emotion in Oskar. He is a very logical and analytical child, and he is not quite mature enough to grasp the irrational part of emotion. But I didn’t see him as unemotional; he was full of emotion that he didn’t understand and couldn’t express or deal with. Several of his inventions involve something that would make emotions clear cut, like the color changing skin dye. And as he tells the doctor, he is “constantly emotional,” (201), but his honest response of how to deal with it is to say, “I’m gonna bury my feelings deep inside me” (203).
Olga also brings up the fact that the book being told in first person means that “we know only what Oskar chooses to reveal to us,” that we only get his perspective on things. But I think that the first person narration really works for this story. Greg says that Foer made Oskar the way he is for a reason, and part of that is his innocence and naiveté. Sure Oskar tries to be guarded, objective, and somewhat impersonal, and we only get his account on things, but his misunderstandings and oversimplifications about the things going on around him clarify what it really happening. Rather than being a blatant third person description of the ins-and-outs of Oskar’s life, what he thinks and feels is hidden behind his defenses and has to be inferred by the reader from the differences between what Oskar says and what is obviously not right. This seems to be where the “showing, not telling” is—the reader sees how Oskar understands things and sees the world by looking through his eyes rather than being told. In the interview, Foer talks about how “really good books are books that have two authors, the reader and the writer,” and I think that the way Oskar’s narration is written is the result of that approach to writing.
This interview with Birnbaum and Foer was very eye-opening. It helped me to understand the book much better and see exactly what Foer was thinking when he was writing this novel. First off I must say Jonathan Safran Foer has a brilliant mind. The thing I noticed about the interview that first caught my eye was when he said, "What I mean is I want to be somehow part of the creation that he is a part of". To me this says that Foer wants to be a part of everything. Whether it is something as simple as letting other people hear music to be discovered or as complex as 'saving the world', he is interested in it. Further into the interview, Foer mentions that "everyone has a role to play". This small statement got me thinking. What is my role? How do people know what each of their roles are? I guess everyone just has to learn along the way. I never really thought about how very small words can cause such a large picture in your head. When Foer says "So when writing you use the word 'tree.' Four letters. Very, very short word. Fits a couple millimeters on a page. But in the reader’s mind it becomes a kind of idealized version of a tree, and that tree is different for each person who reads the book" I visualized a tree. As I'm sure most other readers did as well. Then i thought about how many different trees everyone thought of. I thought it was very interesting. So now, as I am finishing the book, everytime I see a word, large or very small, i know that visualizing it will help me understand the book. Foer talks about how he didn't use his life experiences at all to create Oskar Schell. This surprised me because throughout the entire book I had believed that inside Oskar was Johnathan Safran Foer. Now that I know it is not, it changes my views about some parts of the book. Reading this interview enhanced my reading of the novel and made it much more of a challenge beacuse now there are many new things to look for and understand in this book.
As one might have concluded after reading my comments prior to this, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and have a great respect for Foer. I really love how he does not stay within the boundaries that keeping Oskar a "normal" nine year old boy would entail. I also love how, like Elizabeth mentioned, Foer creates Oskar into a character where the reader can not necessarily relate to him but can rather experience what he is going through as he goes through it. Contrary to what Olga experienced, I felt that this strategy of writing the book "almost in the form of a diary"(Olga) is rather effective. I do not feel that Oskar is holding back or revealed only what he wants to. I believe that when he says he is angry or sad or has "heavy boots" and furthermore does not provide an explanation as to why, he simply does not have an explanation. At these times in the novel I feel that Oskar is actually acting how a typical nine year old boy who lost his father would probably act, confused and emotional without fully grasping the reason as to why. Rather than feeling like an "intruding third party,"(Olga) in such cases, my heart sank a little because I could see how his father's death was so taxing and how he did not really comprehend why he was feeling what he was, which is no doubt why his mother has him seeing a shrink.
This manner of writing, as if writing a diary, reminded me of when I read The Diary of Anne Frank. During which time I, along with the majority of its readers, based on it's large popularity, did not feel like an "intruding third party"(Olga) just as I do not feel like that when I read the novel in question right now.
I realize that this comment may seem somewhat aggressive but by no means am I attacking Olga's view of this book. I suppose I do agree with her when she mentions that this debate is probably in large part due to different readers having different personalities. I suppose I would enjoy reading someone else's diary, and try to empathize with them, while others might simply feel like it was not mean for them to read.
I would like to start off by further discussing the statement that Maggie A brought up when Foer said, “everyone has a role to play.” Within this novel there is no doubt that every single person is involved for a reason. Every single Black is brought into Oskar’s life in order to teach him something new, whether it be a simple fact or a large lesson. When Oskar met Ruth Black at the top of the Empire State Building she informed Oskar about the building and its surroundings. Other people such as his grandma and mother try to teach Oskar more life lessons and things that he will need to mature and become a better person. One of the ways that Oskar is taught is through the “shrink” (Rebecca) that his mother sends him to see. This is to help him through the process of his fathers death and to help Oskar control his emotions. Everyone in the book has a certain role that Foer has given them, whether it is to help Oskar or to help another character.
Olga talks about the different feelings that each reader may have while reading a book. Everyone is different and entitled to their own opinion and I believe that Foer realizes this and wants everyone to experience every piece of literature for themselves, the way that they see it. In the interview he states, “ who is going to produce the mental image if not you?” Foer wants everyone to think for themselves and believes that everyone should have an imagination when they dive into a novel. Not everyone is going to feel the same way about all of the events within a book and that is the whole point of reading and sharing thoughts about literature.
There seems to be a question of Oskar’s reliability as a narrator. A few people have said that this book is written in the form of a diary, and that we only see the world through Oskar’s eyes. This is true to some degree, but there are many other perspectives that Foer shows us. We see the world through both of the grandparent’s eyes, and we even get to see Oskar through their letters. All of the grandmother’s letters are addressed to Oskar, and though we may not actually see him, we do see how much she loves him. We also get to see him through the grandfather’s eyes. On pages 237 and 280 we get to see the same scene from Oskar’s and his grandfather’s point of view. This is the first time we see Oskar from the outside. His grandfather says, “Poor child, telling everything to a stranger, I wanted to build walls around him, I wanted to separate inside from outside, I wanted to give him an infinitely long blank book and the rest of time” (280). The contrast between the two points of view help to characterize Oskar.
After reading the interview, I looked through my book and realized how many things we had to visualize. We all pictured the events differently and that is what made the book so great. I love when Foer says, “So when writing you use the word 'tree.' Four letters. Very, very short word. Fits a couple millimeters on a page. But in the reader’s mind it becomes a kind of idealized version of a tree, and that tree is different for each person who reads the book”. Our books are personalized for us because we all see things differently. Maggie A also touches upon the fact that since we visualize things differently, we will all have different views on the book. As Joe O says, not liking the book and liking the book are both “completely acceptable”. And that is what makes Foer such an amazing author.
Something about Foer that I really like and that stands out to me in the interview and in the book is his effort to keep a fair and clear perspective on everything. Foer seems to say that the book is kind of a reaction to the black and white view of September 11. He also says that “novelists have a responsibility to pay attention to important things,” and that the important things are specific people reacting to the situation individually. When he sees something that has happened like that, with the perspective of the people that it happened to, rather than as something broad with a singular meaning, it adds up to what I see as a major theme of Foer’s: “the world is this incredibly complicated mix of perspectives and vantages and life experiences,” which is also something that Oskar learns throughout the book.
Looking at the world in that way seems to result in a tolerance and sense of equality in relation to other people. Kenny says that Foer “seems to polarize people into two categories: those who live for money and those who live for passion;” while I wouldn’t say he necessarily “polarizes” people that rigidly, he does make a distinction between ‘money people’ and ‘not money people.” Foer says that the “danger is in confusing the roles,” but I don’t think he is really condemning ‘money people.’ While he disapproves of some things they do, he recognizes that there are different kinds of people with different values and different roles to play that are just as valuable as those more similar to him. He seems to genuinely value everyone’s opinion and input. This comes across in the interview when he talks about reading and writing. His views that a reader’s opinion is just as valid as a reviewer’s, that a book is as much a reader’s as a writer’s, his praise of writers that “felt like the world would be better if there were more people writing books,” his lack of “low-level ululation that there are too many books and there is too much crap being published”—all these things are a part of that tolerance. This shows up in the book as well. Greg says that “every single Black is brought into Oskar’s life in order to teach him something new;” through Oskar he shows all the different perspectives and things that can be learned from every different person. Even in the way the book is written, with three different narrators telling their story, it feels more like a collaboration of voices than one author writing to preach his opinions. I think the most striking thing about Foer and his work is his genuine interest in and respect for other people.
Something about Greg M’s comment from his last blog, “Every single Black is brought into Oskar’s life in order to teach him something new, whether it be a simple fact or a large lesson” made me think of something new. Yes, it is true that Oskar learned some kind of lesson from each of the Blacks, but I wonder if ultimately all of these lessons are from his mother. Oskar discovers that his mother has known all along about the mission since he talked to Abby Black on the first day (291). While it is never known what exactly she says to each of the Blacks that she contacted, she did ask them to help Oskar and almost “play along” with the story. Oskar’s mom had no control over what they told her son, but maybe she encouraged them to teach him something and also learn something from him.
On another topic, I want to address the question from the blog prompt “how reading a conversation with an author enhances or challenges your reading of a novel”. After reading through the other blogs it seems that reading this interview has changed the perspective of the readers not only for those who have finished the book, but also those still reading. Many posts have stated how after reading Foer’s interpretation of his own novel their interpretation has changed as well. This enhances reading the novel because not only does it give the reader a chance to develop their own ideas about the novel and it’s characters first, but then after new ideas can be developed from the author’s thoughts. For those such as Maggie A, reading the interview before finishing the book gives the reader a chance to combine their own thoughts with those of the author while still finishing the book. Any time that this interview was read enhances the reading experience and opens up a new door to reflection on the novel.
I would like to make some attempt at distinguishing between the realistic and the unrealistic characteristics and ideas of what Foer has attempted in his novel.
It is clear Oskar is quite the unrealistic character; he is nine years old and he puns off sexual jokes. Foer admitted himself that he didn’t intend to create a realistic character. He assures us that he is “not really writing a nine-year-old kid . . . [o]r not in a realistic way,” and that his actual intention was to “create something that was believable” and “something that you could really empathize with.” With that in mind, it becomes clear that Foer is using Oskar’s character to create a journey that the reader can follow along with, as Foer also notes. Brilliantly, he has created the novel in such a way that allows the reader to envision the journey as he or she may, while still staying within the boundaries of the story that he created.
Several inferences clearly need to be made about the character of Oskar, and that is exactly the style that Foer had in mind when he wrote the piece. Now, Oskar is not real, obviously. He’s an idea that Jonathan Safran Foer had when he wrote this book. The idea was humanized quite clearly, but the idea shows something greater in actuality. With this idea, Foer aimed at a different approach to the American “black and white” approach to 9/11 that states the facts and the answers. Well, his idea doesn’t really present much of a concrete answer to any specific question—that just shows one man’s great ability to write a pretty original and creative story. He takes his idea and offers the reader a chance to empathize with a character that has some deep, painful holes from the 9/11 attacks, and he offers this to us on such an unusual and sometimes uncomfortable level. And I say cheers to being uncomfortable.
While I do agree with Joe O that “Oskar is quite the unrealistic character,” I feel that Foer created Oskar the way he did in order to enhance the novel. Oskar is extremely intelligent and has very unique qualities. Without Oskar’s occasional emotional outbursts, and the random facts that he shares with other characters, the book would be unoriginal and just like any other novel about a boy on an adventure. Foer states “what makes Oskar, Oskar, is in one part all of his characteristics but in another part, the reader.” Oskar is unique and that is what Foer wanted to convey. I feel that Foer wanted to give the reader an exciting character to read about, while at the same time having someone that people could relate to. Everyone can relate to emotion and since Oskar seems to feel them all, people have the chance to relate to how the character is feeling in some way. Also, Oskar is created within the readers mind. All of the things that Oskar does may be interpreted in a different way depending on the person who is reading the book. Foer wants the readers to engage in the novel and even though Oskar may not be completely realistic, the qualities that Oskar has are “believable” and that is what makes the story interesting to the reader.
Some aspects of the interview that I found noteworthy were the parts were Foer and Birnbaum brought some really good points and statements that I had never really thought about. Like when they started talking about how when people see beauty they want to replicate that and spread the beauty of it. Or how writing is the only thing critiqued in it's own language? I never thought about it that way. Another good point was when Foer brought up that "a book is an intimate object" I really liked that statement. The fact that a book can become a close and personal thing and when you write and interact with it it only gets closer. I also agree with Foer in that a reader contributes to the book as well. Only the reader can create the image that the book is describing, it is "different for each person". I never really thought about this point, I mean I always knew it was there, but I never really stated anything about it. That's why when you see a movie after the book and the actor is just someone you wouldn't have thought for the character. That's your own personalization adding to your critique.
I also love what Foer said about how a book should be published or about making it "really pure", and how he doesn't like acknowledgements or the author picture, or page numbers even. For some reason that just made me really happy because I thought I was one of the only people who didn't read the acknowledgements. :)
I want to comment on what Joe O said about Oskar "being an unrealistic character" because as much as Oskar doesn't seem real he really is like some kids I know today. I know that Foer didn't "intentionally make him realistc", but I work with kids and I know some kids who remind me a lot of Oskar. They haven't been through the same things as he has, but they have the to smart for their age thing going for them. As much as Oskar is unrealistic he is realistic...
In the end I thought that reading the interview with Foer was very revealing in that it helped see what the author thought about his book and just major themes that had nothing to do with his book. I think he brought up great points to think about.
After reading Katelyn's last comment my memory of how Foer said in the interview that, "if it were up to me, I wouldn’t have a bar code on the back. I wouldn’t have blurbs on it. I wouldn’t have an author photo...I don’t even like page numbers, to be honest," and another little light bulb turned on on my head. All of this time I have really been learning to appreciate all of the emotion that Foer has put in to his pieces in places that I did not take into account before now. The fact that he wishes that his book could be "really pure"(Foer), as Katelyn said, makes me like him that much more and shows, once again, how he wrote this book with the purpose of emotion and connecting with people, whether they like the book or not. When I first read this part of the interview I chuckled a little and thought it was awesome, as Katelyn obviously did too, that he didn't like the acknowlegements or any of the other "extra stuff" either but then dismissed it as nothing very intriguing but now I have changed my mind. I tried to imagine a book with nothing but words, as Foer said he would prefer things. I came up with the image of a little white book with the title on it and page one just plunged you right into the story, no copywrite information, no dedications, just the title and in you went! I then imagined it being read to a little girl as a bedtime story, but without the book. It was as though a book without page numbers was not a book at all, it was much more personal. It was like Oskar's dad telling him the story of the sixth borough and then maybe later writing it down so that he could always look back and remember it perfectly, no page numbers, not even an author. So ultimately, the reader would in fact be the only author. I love Foer for wanting to make something like that, something so intimate, so personal.
I just want to say that after reading this interview, I appreciate Mr. Foer even more because he likes Bright Eyes, and so do I!
Anyways, what probably caught my attention most in the interview with Jonathan Safran Foer is how he described a book as something pure, something raw. "A book is an organic thing." I love that description. Really, all the book needs to boil down to is the story; not the acknowledgements, about the authors, etc, as Foer explained.
I also found this other point of view Foer had to be interesting:"A book is an intimate object." It really is. That is why on all the other blog topics, people may agree and/or disagree with each other, because each person has connected with the story in some way or another; everyone sees things differently. I admire the comment Katelyn H made to go along with JSF's point. "That's why when you see a movie after the book and the actor is just someone you wouldn't have thought for the character. That's your own personalization adding to your critique." I could not have worded that better. I really also like Foer's comment because, to me, it makes him seem modest. He does not care how catchy the front of his book is, he does not care whether there is a 20 page long interview with him in the back, he said he would prefer no author's picture. To JSF, the book is not about him. It's about Oskar and his adventures. He simply wants the reader to share a story that he has created,to enter another "world" (for lack of a better term.) I really respect Jonathan Safran Foer, and agree with Maggie A when she says that he has a brilliant mind.
About halfway through this interview, I realized that I did not know what the John Updike review of this book said. All that is mentioned is that Foer thinks that "it was a really thoughtful review . . . What was clear was that he was not the right reader for the book" (Foer). In order to comprehend this, I looked up and read the Updike review. It's about three pages long and there is a lot of plot summary, but the general opinion of the book is that it would have been better if there were less visual elements and it was just plain text. I could not disagree more. The visual elements add to the book and keep the reader thinking throughout the book. There are times when Foer does not say something specifically, but the visual elements tell the reader what he or she needs to know. One example of this is the letter marked in pen on pages 208 to 216. This is the only letter ever received by the late Thomas Schell, but there are not words that say that. The red pen says what the words cannot. The visual elements also keep the story more interesting and satisfy just enough of the reader's imagination that one wants to keep reading for more. When Oskar is visiting Abby Black, he sees the picture that looks like the elephant is crying. This picture looked one way in my mind, but I liked that the actual picture is in the book so that I could actually see what the picture looks like. From this point on, I was excited for new images to look for and even when the pictures were not in there I could use my imagination. Having some pictures in the book and leaving others up to the imagination made it so that I only had to imagine some of the things and made the book more readable to me. Overall, I agree that John Updike was not the right reader for this book, as this book was not in the molds of most bestsellers these days.
Katelyn H. hit it right on the dot when she said, “That's why when you see a movie after the book and the actor is just someone you wouldn't have thought for the character. That's your own personalization adding to your critique." I couldn’t agree more. Foer created this novel with no intention or desire for his book to be made into a movie, because it would therefore ruin the whole point of what Foer wanted readers to experience. By producing a movie from this novel, I believe it would change the whole effect and purpose. It would no longer give the reader the ability to invent what the characters look like or give the book their own personal style and uniqueness. I completely agree with the classic belief of “books are always better than the movie.” With a movie, everything is set in stone. There is no room to imagine. It is what it is. And to me, I don’t see the fun in that. I love being able to read a paragraph and create my own pictures to go along with the words. There are so many possibilities. And for that reason, I admire Foer’s style of writing. As Christen N said, he simply wants the reader to enter another world. In the interview, Foer reveals, “No books survive unless readers talk about it and spread it. It doesn’t matter how good reviews are given. It doesn’t matter how much the author is paid; the survival of books depends on the reader” (JSF Interview). It is so true. Interaction between the novel and the reader is what makes the story what it is. Just reading a book without engaging in the characters or events is going to result in a boring waste of time. Rebecca N accurately writes, “So ultimately, the reader would in fact be the only author.” Foer’s approaches his writing with this in mind and ultimately creates a book that is left to your imagination with endless possibilities.
Another aspect of the interview that I thought was worthy of note was when JSF says, “Who is going to produce the mental image if not you? When you read, do [you] hear a voice in your head or not? I can’t read a word without hearing a voice” (JSF Interview). When I read this, I had to laugh because it is so true. I never really realized that when I silently read a sentence, there is a voice repeating the same words back in my head. Even as I type this entry, there is the constant repeat of words that I hear in my mind. The more I think about it, the more annoying it gets because I cant make it go away. But I just thought it was so clever of Foer to grasp this concept and put it into words because I never would have thought of it that way. That just goes to show what a brilliant mind this author has and also how he reflects upon ideas.
Up to this point I have gotten the impression that the majority of those who have commented on this topic have taken something positive from the interview and in turn have taken a liking to Jonathan Safran Foer. I too fall within this catagory. After reading Christen's comment however, my reason as to why has been slightly modified. Prior to this comment, I found that Foer was most spectacular due to the amount of intimacy he puts into his work and how much he hopes that his readers will get out of it. Now, it has occurred to me that the way he says things in the interview "makes him seem modest"(Christen) and it has occurred to me how much I like him for being such a humble person. For instance, rather than boasting about how he does not care how many copies of his books are sold and how he is not a "money [person]"(Birnbaum), which is far from anything a person of his character would say anyways, he instead admits things like how "There is nothing [he] like more than a book that comes completely beaten up with different people’s notes in it—it becomes a kind of palimpsest"(Foer.) He would rather write one copy of his book and have the world pass it around and leave there mark on it,as the book would on them, as opposed to printing a million copies and getting rich off of it. I find this quality of his amazing and equally amazing is how he does not admit or accept how amazing he really is.
Towards the end of the interview Foer talks about the importance of diary and letter writing. He says that it is “one of the highest forms of writing and something I value so much.” After reading this statement and the novel it makes sense that Foer enjoys this style of writing. Within the book Foer writes from the perspective of Oskar’s grandparents in a letter form. In these sections the grandparents let out everything that they are feeling and show all of their emotion. This form of writing lets the grandparents say what they want to, but not directly to the person. Foer displays all of the things that he likes through his writing in a very subtle way. All of the things that mean something to him he lets flow into his novel. To Foer diary writing is a way to express oneself and he believes that those who are able to keep good diaries going should never feel that they are not “useful.” Diaries and letters display views and emotions that people are feeling and it is a good way to let feelings out. Through the novel, Foer shows that Oskar lets out emotions by talking about things while some characters write letters to help themselves feel better.
After I read this interview I realized that the author put a piece of himself into almost every character and I understand Oskar more than I did before. In the interview JSF says he has had many jobs which was the very first similarity I saw between him and Oskar. This made me think of the business card Oskar had. foer made Oskar a character in his book so people would be able to connect because obviously Oskar is not your average 9-year-old boy. The second similarity I saw was that JSF says that when he is writing he can say whatever he wants in the way he wants to say it, which is exactly like Oskar, and can come off as blunt. Then I see Foer's imagination at work when he says,"I really like books as objects, as little inanimate sculptures that you have a real interaction with..."
When the subject of this book becoming a movie came up, I was disappointed because JSF says," Like, books are generous things, they give enough to really stimulate your imagination. But they also have to withhold enough for it to be your imagination and not the author’s." I think that when a movie comes out that is based on a book it ruins your perspective of the events in the book. It gives everyone who watches it the same pictures, and the same ideas, so there is no room for imagination. I think that reading a book is much more satisfying because like Foer says in the interview, the voice is yours. I admire JSF for saying that pictures, blurbs, and even page numbers don't belong in a book.
In his interview, Foer states that (Updike) "was not the right reader for the book." How could someone say that another person is not the right reader for a book? In my opinion, anyone should be able to read anything they like. Isn't that the point of books? For anyone who reads it to be able to visualize what they think should be visualized and believe what they think should be believed? Another thing that caught my eye was when JSF was talking about how so many people don't pay attention to some books and read things like the New York Times that talks about things that aren't as important as what some books talk about. This was interesting to me because I think that Foer made an excellent point there. In this novel, 9/11 is being told in ways that are more understandable for a larger audience while in big-time magazines and newspapers, it was being told in ways that maybe some people couldn't comprehend. In a sense, I agree with JSF because more people should be reading books and expanding their horizons. Just because a book may look boring on the outside doesn't mean that it doesn't have a good message or story or anything like that.
To me, it seems that Jonathan him self is the base for his characters in EL&IC. Just after a few lines into the interview, i began getting an odd feeling that it was like talking to an older version of Oskar. He has a unique way of looking at the world that is very refreshing and intriguing. Its the same feeling i got when i read Oskar's parts of EL&IC.
Also, i disagree with Maggie A P when she says 'How could someone say that another person is not the right reader for a book? In my opinion, anyone should be able to read anything they like.' Yes, i agree that a person should read anything they want to, but it is a very plausible idea that a person is not the right reader for a book. I have several examples of this, but let me cut it down to a few. Someone against witch craft reading the Harry Potter series or a Wiccan Ritual guide. A prejudice person reading The Secret Life of Bees, or a Darwin believer to read The Creation verses in the Bible.
One last thing i noticed is this quote by Jon, 'There is nothing I like more than a book that comes completely beaten up with different people’s notes in it.' which caught my attention because it is rephrasing the first blue page in our assignment packet thats says 'If, when you've finished reading a book, the pages are filled with your notes, you know that you read actively.'
I’d like to move to the several points that Foer and Birnbaum make about our culture and how it’s relevant to the reading/writing world. Foer claims that “there are two kinds of writers, those that want for there to be more writers and those who want there to fewer writers.” Well, in my opinion, I want there to be more writers because it has to be one of the best ways to express your self. Think about journaling. Sometimes our thoughts are so quick and jumbled it’s easy to forget how we’re really feeling or thinking. If we write those thoughts out, then it becomes easier to sort out our thoughts through the form of writing. Thus, we are able to gain more clarity in our knowledge of self. With that, we can see that writing truly is a gift and a fantastic form of expression. So should there be more, or less writers in the world? Obviously, there should be as many as we can add! We should always be sharing as much knowledge as we can with each other, and what better way to do it then in the form of a story?
Another element that’s interesting to the interview is what Foer says about us high school kids. He informs us that we need to “stop thinking of there being a huge difference between you as a reader and you as a writer.” This struck me very profoundly because I always had thought there was a big difference. But we see that reading is just following along with someone else’s form of expression, and writing is just us expressing ourselves. So, the two go hand in hand; reading is from a receiving end and writing is from a giving end. But as Foer implies, the two really seem to complement each other.
Now that Updike's review, as mentioned in the interview, has been brought up again in another comment, I decided to look it up and see what all the fuss was about. I went into it thinking that Updike "was not the right reader for the book"(Foer) and I was interested in seeing if I could get a greater understanding for what Maggie said when she believed Foer was in the wrong to say such a thing about a reader. Once I read the review I found out that Anne hit the nail on the head when she mentioned how there was a whole lot of summary. Although, even in the way that Updike sumarized Foer's piece it was quite clear that Updike did not really appreciate the book. Throughout the review Updike always had an underlying air of disrespect for Foer and his novel.
"This reader’s heart slightly sank when he realized that he was going to spend more than three hundred pages in the company of an unhappy, partially wised-up nine-year-old...But, over all, the book’s hyperactive visual surface covers up a certain hollow monotony in its verbal drama...I don’t doubt that Foer is resourceful enough to take us all the way through the alphabet with amiable freaks, but was grateful that he didn’t"(Updike.)
Furthermore, I really have to agree with Jacklyn when she said that, "Someone against witch craft reading the Harry Potter series or a Wiccan Ritual guide" would not be considered the right reader for that particular book, just as Updike was not the right reader for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. He simply did not catch on to all the emotion and intimacy that is available within the novel and did not have the reaction or the experience that one would hope to have while reading such a book, unless I suppose, one enjoys reading a book that he/she does not like. While I can see where it may be wrong for someone to call someone else the wrong type of reader for a book, I believe that under these circumstances it was rather legitimate.
For those of you that do not wish to search for Updike's review but would like to read it, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/14/050314crbo_books1?currentPage=1
I think that Oskar in the novel is a direct reflection of Foer himself. I see so many similarities between them, it is really incredible. After reading the interview, I see Foer as a grown- up version of Oskar.He is more mature and more able to communicate and interact with his world and is definitely more self- confident but they share a quiet, philosophical way of viewing the world. Their perspectives are very different from the average person's and they interpret things much differently than the average person.
For example, the way that Foer describes his view of books. he describes them as very personal things, objects that see the most personal, secret side of people, such as being in the bath tub or being in bed. I know that I read in both of those places. I just love how he doesn't personify them, he still treats them as objects and calls them so but he gives them the ability to interpret and see the world. He does not over exaggerate the metaphor but he still makes it and bothers to define them as more than objects.
In a backwards way, this is how Oskar sees people. He still calls and sees them as humans but at the same time has the ability to give them object- like qualities: to deprive them of emotions and opinions on occasions in order to make his world less complicated.
I love the way both of these (people?) sort of . . . level the playing field in a way. They make the ground even and put everything on the same level, people and objects.
ia17
At one point in the interview Foer completely caught my attention with the way he described how a four letter word, read by many, can inspire an entirely different experience for each person.
Foer says, "the art form I most love—are how much they give and how much they withhold. Like, books are generous things, they give enough to really stimulate your imagination. But they also have to withhold enough for it to be your imagination and not the author’s . . . So when writing you use the word “tree.” Four letters. Very, very short word. Fits a couple millimeters on a page. But in the reader’s mind it becomes a kind of idealized version of a tree, and that tree is different for each person who reads the book and because of that a book is customized for each person in a way a song never could be and as a painting never could be."
I have always seen it this way. It's the same when a new movie comes out based on a fantastic book you've read. When this happens I have mixed feelings, on one hand you get to see a good story come to life, moving breathing, existing. But on the other hand, I don't want to spoil the perfect image that I have in my own imagination. Everyone's views are different and even if the author were to make it a movie with every aspect they wrote down perfectly portrayed, it could never amount to the vision every reader has in their own mind.
Foer tries to protect every reader's personal experience in such a way that it makes him so much more than an ordinary author, it makes him an artist. Books are able to take their audience to a different place, time even a different perspective. Foer is a great author. Also, I love how down to earth he is, very sarcastic.
Whenever I read a novel and see the author in an interview I can always see a little bit of the author in the characters. In Jonathan Safran Foer's interview one of the first statements he makes is that his name is "like the number four". This completely reminds me of Oskar and all the blunt things he says. The voice is also the same. The order and way the words are used are the exact same to Oskar. There are alwyas simliarities to the author and their characters, take Harry Potter for example. J.K. Rowling was homeless and she didn't have anything, and that's like Harry Potter. Foer sort of rebels against society, he doesn't try to be like everyone else and you see this with his taste in music and what he thinks about the film industry. Oskar is like that in a sense as well. He only where's white, he doesn't take the bus, the subway, or anything like that. Not that that is bad,it's just that society usually does the opposite. Oskar is unique and individual and so is Jonathan Safran Foer.
I've started to wonder whether Jonathan Safran Foer lost anyone close to him in 9/11 or in another tragic incident. Only because he seems to know the emotions that come out of person that is dealing with a terrible tragedy. Some authors try to write things and try to show the emotions that come along with some sort of pain, but they can never quite hit it. Foer hit it perfectly, he showed the anger, the guilt, the sadness, the helplessness, and loss of faith. Most people that have been through a tramatic experience know that you deal with more than just sadness, you have highs and lows; however not everyone has had to deal with something so painful, so they wouldn't necessarily understand what kind of things you experience. I do understand the emotions because i have experienced something tramatic. If Foer hasn't ever experienced something like this, you wouldn't know it because he knew exactly how it makes you feel, and that to me is amazing. I'm very impressed with how he wrote the story and how he was able to write about Oskar's emotions, even though he might have never had to experience something terrible.
I must completely disagree with Rebecca's post and Foer's point, there is no such thing as the "right reader for the book" (Foer qtd. in Rebecca). Personally, that comment makes me believe that Foer cannot accept criticism well. When a person writes a book, he writes it for all of man kind, and, as we all know, no two people are exactly the same. There are going to be people to do not appreciate the book, I will emphatically accept that point, however simply because a person writes the novel off as a little too wordy or too convoluted cannot be ignored and labeled as the wrong reader. In fact, after reading Updike's review, it seemed as if he did have some good things to say about Foer, even if they were backhanded compliments such as, "But a little more silence, a few fewer messages, less graphic apparatus might let Foer’s excellent empathy, imagination, and good will resonate all the louder" (Updike).
Foer writes his novel and expects the reader to be the coauthor, and then decides that if a person does not like the story or grasp what Foer was trying to convey, then the reader was the wrong reader. But I must pose the question that if you write a novel expecting the details to be ironed out by the reader and the messages clearly conveyed through those details, then how can you blame the reader for not understanding the details you wanted conveyed. Is it not up to the reader to take out of the novel what he wants to, or can? We are not all in the same place in our lives when we read the last line of the novel, "We would have been safe" (326). Some readers might have lost a parent recently while others might have just won the lottery, some might be tucked away in a cozy reading chair, while others are reading the novel on a dingy subway in New York. Foer cannot expect all of his ideas to be conveyed to every reader while still maintaining the coauthorship. It is one or the other, and in most cases, the coauthorship wins.
My source was:
Mixed Messages
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/14/050314crbo_books1?currentPage=3
Foer’s comments about keeping a diary are intriguing. He says that he “thinks it is one of the highest forms of writing and something [he values] so much.” When I think of journaling, I have always considered it much easier than other types of writing—such as writing poetry, essays or novels. Foer doesn’t judge it on how easy it is, however. A child asks how he can make his diary “more useful” and Foer tries to discourage him from “thinking there was anything more useful.” This seems so wise and humble of Foer. And, come to think of it, journaling is very valuable. To capture the life of a character you make up can be a very profound experience; however, it pales in comparison the capturing of one’s own life and experiences.
My grandma once told me, “If I would have written more about my childhood, I honestly believe I would remember more of it.” Until the past two years or so, I was never able to journal, like Foer. My problem was that I was too hard on myself about my writing and I was always accompanied by an anxiety as if someone were reading over my shoulder and critiquing me. Also, I never really felt there would be value in others reading about a lot of my seemingly insignificant childhood experiences. I never realized, the main beneficiary in keeping a journal is typically the writer. At a certain point I began to keep everything that I wrote, enabling myself to keep a journal. The experience, or even journey, helped me to realize how much value there is in writing for the sake of writing, rather than for others to read. It gave me a lot of confidence and made me a much better writer.
This subject ties to another of Foer’s, which Joe O brought up: Foer’s advice to “stop thinking of there being a huge difference between you as a reader and you as a writer.” His point is that we learn and grow from reading and writing, rather than just reading. In the practice of writing in a journal, you can learn more about yourself and how to express your emotions, thoughts, and experiences. Perhaps most journal writing will never get an outstanding review from critics, but that is not where the value that Foer speaks of lies.
I would like to branch off of what Kenny N said when he brought up Foer's point of the relationship between a reader and a writer, "His point is that we learn and grow from reading and writing, rather than just reading. In the practice of writing in a journal, you can learn more about yourself and how to express your emotions, thoughts, and experiences." To add to this thought, I think that Foer is also trying to say that the reader does part of the writing. It often times does not matter what words the author puts on the page, the reader is going to interpret them in their own way, making them a part of the writing process. All that a good writer really does is to choose the right words to engage the reader's mind. Once this is done, the reader picks up where the writer left off and finishes the story within his or her own mind. Again, this goes back to the tree comment. One person could see a pine tree and another could see a coconut tree. It all depends on the mind of the reader.
I would also like to address Keaton F's comments on Foer's interview. I think that you are interpreting his words in the wrong manner. I think that when Foer comments about the, "right reader for the book", I don't think he is expecting the reader to be the coauthor. I think that he is rather suggesting that some readers simply can't interpret the words that the author put on the page in a way that makes sense with their brains. For example, I have a friend that, for the longest time, she told me that she just couldn't read books because she lost focus and interest. Then, I introduced her to a wonderful book that I would guess a majority of students on this blog read last summer, THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHT TIME. She loved it. She was able to get through it and understand it within two days. That novel was told in such a different narrative style than many novels that the words that the author chose clicked with her brain and she was able to make sense of it and enjoy it. I think that that is all that Foer meant. Its simply necessary to find the reader who's brain clicks with the words that the reader chose. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Foer's only point is that some readers are going to understand and appreciate a novel and others aren't. He's not asking or expecting the reader to do anything.
Going along with Joe O and Kenny N discussion of reading and writing for high school students, Foer’s statement “the idea that a book is something you go to for self-improvement, to make yourself smarter” struck me. We, as high school students do not always have time to read leisurely anything that we choose. For the most part, I only have time to read what ever I may be reading in English class at the time, which basically comes down to Foer’s idea, making myself smarter. Just as young people do not read just to read and gain enjoyment from it, they do not write just to write. That may be why journaling is not as popular. To some students the amount of time they read and write in school is enough for them, causing no further desire to keep up with a journal or even write a letter as Birnbaum suggests. Perhaps that is why Foer encourages students to write journals, to write for themselves. He states, “I think it’s one of the highest forms of writing and something I value so much. I am so envious of people who can do it in a way that feels that true to them”. This novel was so easy for students to relate to because it is written in a way that resembles the type of journal that they might not have or be able to keep up with. This novel is true to the connection that Joe O mentioned earlier about how writing and reading go hand in hand. It is almost as if the reader is writing their own story as they read this novel.
I must disagree with Keaton when he says that when a writer creates a book, he "creates it for all of man kind [sic]." Foer is completely right in saying that his book is not for everybody--more specifically, John Updike--and it should not be his intention to appeal to the whole world. To me, this is evident within this very blog. People like Olga S were borderline disgusted with the book and how it portrays emotion, while people like Rebecca N were incredibly touched by the emotion contained within this novel. Obviously, Rebecca was the kind of person that Foer intended the novel to be read by, and that appealing to one person seems much more important, to him, than appealing to a mass amount of people.
I also disagree that Foer "cannot take criticism well." As Foer stated, Updike's review "was a mixed review, but [Foer] enjoyed reading it." Updike had several issues with the book, and Foer was a good sport about it. He is more honored that his book is being reviewed by someone like Updike, than he is saddened that he did not give the book critical acclaim. It is obvious that Foer cares more about his passion for writing--and reading--than he cares for what people think of his books. Sure, he doesn't mind that people read and love his books, but that's not what it is all about for him. It is just about writing being one of the more important aspects of his life.
During the interview I found one of Jonathan's comments very interesting. "No book survives unless readers talk about it and spread it. It doesn’t matter how good reviews are given. It doesn’t matter how much the author is paid; the survival of books depends on readers." I believe this is verw true because I was talking to a friend from work about the book and she said she had heard of it. His comment is also interesting because a good thing, if it is a book, a movie, or a new invention, will never be well known untill it is talked about.
I appriciated it when Kenny N commented, "the main beneficiary in keeping a journal is typically the writer." I also have problems freestyle writing because I feel my life events will be insignificant to another reader. Although when Kenny said that I realized that it is true. While writing the writer needs to focus on their on feelings and thoughts in order to make a beautiful piece of writing.
As I read the interview it became clear to me, much as it became clear to many of you, that Foer is not only trying to write a novel, or tell a story, but also trying to create an experience. In the interview Foer fights the misconception that a book is just a book. He points out that "A book is an intimate object" and elaborates,
"I wanted people to read it and for it to be part of a conversation.” There is nothing I like more than a book that comes completely beaten up with different people’s notes in it—it becomes a kind of palimpsest." Throughout the interview he appears to dodge questions that ask him to relate to a character or explain how or why he wrote the book the way he did. I believe that this is very intentional. Foer did not want to deprive the reader of relating to the characters, or analysing the significance of a passage. Instead of asserting his own view of the book he allows, even encourages, the reader to make the book their own. This is monumental to some readers, including me, to realize that there is not necessarily a right and a wrong way to interprete a book. In this way there really are two authors of the book.
Instead of directly explaining his book Foer explains his view on literature and the world. Through such statements it is not only possible to better understand his book, but also himself and literature as a whole. Foer raises good points not only about his novels, but also about problems and misconceptions we have as a culture. I thought a particularly insteresting point was when he talks of good books and bad books. "If it takes a hundred thousand bad books to make a good one, do we cry for the trees? What is so upsetting? Have children died because a novel was a failure? It’s just not that big a deal." This really show that as a society we tend to get caught up on little things and lose prospective on what is truly important.
Keaton has a valid point when he says "that comment makes me believe that Foer cannot accept criticism well. When a person writes a book, he writes it for all of man kind, and, as we all know, no two people are exactly the same." Throughout the interview Foer seems indifferent to any critism he recieves. Foer seems confident that as a writer he has made the right move and writes off a single reader's opinion as insignificant and as the reader not being right for the book. This seems ironic from a writer that says a reader is a co-author and just as important to the book as the actual author however perhaps Foer has some valid points. Obviously an author cannot appeal to everyone and Foer made his choice of whom he wished to appeal. Furthermore, in this specific situation the Updike review was well thought out but perhaps not fair. We all know how hard it is to be open to something if you have negative preconceptions going into something, or if you simply want nothing to do with it. Such seems to be the case in the Updike review. Updike says "This reader’s heart slightly sank when he realized that he was going to spend more than three hundred pages in the company of an unhappy, partially wised-up nine-year-old." and goes on to constantly critique the realism. It seems to me as if these early hitches made it impossible for Updike to appreciate the book as a whole.
I would like to add on to what I said in my previous post and also expand on what Carly and Kyle have been saying on the issue of someone being the "right reader" for a particular book. First off, I undoubtedly have to disagree with Keaton when he says that, "When a person writes a book, he writes it for all of man kind." I believe that is incorrect. Every book has an audience that it is geared toward, those who would get the most out of the book and understand it on a level that others could not. Foer even mentions in the interview that nobody under 13 years of age, or so, would have the right experience while reading the book due to the fact that Oskar is such a complicated character. "I don’t know that my book could succeed for a pre-sexual reader, someone who wasn’t older than 12 or 13,"(Foer) Which already narrows down his audience, to still a rather broad spectrum, but it is certainly more specific than "all man kind"(Keaton.)
Furthermore, as Keaton also said, Updike did indeed have a few good things to say about the book but rarely to not at all did he give a compliment without it being "backhanded"(Keaton) or disrespectful, as I mentioned before. More importantly, Updike did not simply dislike the novel, if that had been the case then I would have agreed that Foer does not take criticism ver well, however, that was not the case. Updike obviously did not enjoy the novel but the key element is that he did not connect with it. He looked at Oskar as "a wised-up nine year old"(Updike) as opposed to a poor little boy who is confused and burdened by the loss of his father. Updike simply could not bring himself to connect with the book on that kind of an emotional level. Which is what I believe Foer had in mind when he said that Updike was "not the right reader for the book." He was not pushing Updike aside or giving excuses as to why somebody did not appreciate his novel, he simply realized that Updike did not fall into the catagory of people that this novel is geared towards.
Continually, I disagree with Keaton once more when he says that, "Foer writes his novel and expects the reader to be the coauthor, and then decides that if a person does not like the story or grasp what Foer was trying to convey, then the reader was the wrong reader." I am unsure if me and Keaton are on the same page, well, obviously we are not, but when someone does not grasp something, like the emotional aspect that I mentioned earlier, then maybe he/she is not where they should be. Hence they might be the wrong type of reader for that particular piece. I believe that the element of Updike liking it or not is a completley seperate piece and was not really taken into account by Foer when he said that Updike was "not the right reader." I mean, Updike did not really grasp the point of the book, let alone grasp it enough to like it.
Moreover, I would like to address a question that Keaton asked in his previous post.
"[I]f you write a novel expecting the details to be ironed out by the reader and the messages clearly conveyed through those details, then how can you blame the reader for not understanding the details you wanted conveyed[?]"
Primordially, I do not think that Foer is blaming Updike for not understanding the details that he could not bring himself to iron out. Rather, I think that Foer is calling out how Updike could simply not submerse himself into the intimacy that lies within this book, which is basically the first step to understanding and enjoying this book as what it is meant to be, without which all else is lost. Updike is simply not a member of the intended audience for this piece, and I do not think that is a bad thing, he just isn't, similar to how I am not included in the audience that the science books that my father reads are geared towards, I am just not and there is nothing wrong with that.
Continuing on to the idea of there being a “right reader” for this novel, it would seem, as Foer mentioned, “I don’t know that my book could succeed for a pre-sexual reader, someone who wasn’t older than 12 or 13.” With this being said, a lot of the things and plot of the book are becoming clear (for example, the reason Oskar seems very mature for his age). Foer says he did not mean to be writing the story of a nine year old child, and in fact he doesn’t seen remember his own adolescence. This can tell the readers that Foer wasn’t writing to explain about Oskar’s experience, but to just get his general point across. Birnbaum then said that, “I wouldn’t have less compassion for Oskar if he were 20 years old and lost his father—let me put it this way: I have trouble reading stories in which bad things happen to kids.” Is this why Foer chose to have the main character as a child? Foer then told us he has to portray certain lies to get a point across. Wait didn’t that same thing happen with Oskar and his “necessary” lying?
I also would like to bring up the part of the interview when Foer is talking about the relationship with Oskar and his Father. Oskar’s father and Oskar seem to have a very strong connection, and after he dies, it seems a part of Oskar dies as well. This can be explained when Foer says, “Every invention of his is an act of trying to fill in a hole.” I really felt this explained the way Oskar always is making up his new “inventions”, and it shows that this was just a way of trying to cover his father’s tragic death with things that can help it prevent it from happening from someone else.
I agree with Rebecca N when she says that Foer had a much more specific audience than "all man kind" (Keaton F). Even in school, it is imperative that one writes for a specific audience. I cannot imagine anyone but an English teacher or a student reading and enjoying essays that break down a book and dissect it. There are no books that are written for all man kind because everyone is different. The point of putting archetypes and symbols in books is that they will mean something different for everyone, which is why "the reader [must] be the coauthor" (Keaton F). There cannot be a story written for all mankind because no two people will have the same experience reading the book. What Foer is saying when he says that Updike was "not the right reader" is that Updike did not have the right experiences to get out of the novel what someone who was directly involved in 9/11, had lost a parent, or could simply find it within themselves to relate to a grieving nine-year-old boy could. If one is closed minded about the book, how could they be the right reader?
I have to agree with Rebecca on many of her later and well-stated points, the first of which being that "Every book has an audience that it is geared toward, those who would get the most out of the book and understand it on a level that others could not" (Rebecca). However, I think we are not, as she put it, "on the same page" with regard to a few key points. When I previously stated that a person writes a novel for all of mankind, that is under the assumption that it is not specifically geared for only one type of person i.e. children, housewives, or science buffs. "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" is written to evoke emotion, emotion being a universal human trait. Thus, demanding that this novel be judged on multiple levels, but I will concede, however, that young children might not be considered part of the selected reading group.
Emotion is a trait that every person (save the few sociopaths and people who have received lobotomies) has. This therefore indicates that a novel which is intended to, as I have already mentioned, evoke emotion should relate to all readers. Additionally, John Updike is a learned man who has read multiple books and to suggest that he is "not in the right place" (Rebecca) to read Foer's novel is perhaps a mistake.
I partially agree with Rebecca when she stated, "Every book has an audience that it is geared toward". That is true. A story about a talking lady bug usually isn't intended to be read by an adult. So sometimes there is an obvious intended audience. But I also believe that there are stories that are unintentionally written to better suit a specific audience. This story was not only intended for those sympathetic to a child losing a family member in a tragic way, but that could be an audience that receives the story better. Its truly meant to evoke emotion in the audience and if a specific group of readers developes then that is fine, but it may not be that it was only written for a certain group.
I think that everyone is missing the point about whether or not Foer is correct in saying that there is a right or wrong kind of reader for every book or not. I think that perhaps an author writes a book as a small piece of his or her soul and then releases it into the world. How it is received by the world is not up to them. Imagine, if you were to spend months of your life tying to write and rewrite and proofread and edit over and over again, all without destroying what you were originally trying to say, and really doing everything you possibly could to make it absolutely perfect in your eyes. Trying to make it perfect for the world. Now imagine how incredibly hard it would be to take negative criticism of that thing that you thought was perfect. I think that Foer's comment was simply his way of being okay and being able to take the criticism gracefully.
I think that we are really over analyzing that comment. It is not a matter of whether he was right or wrong. Its all about personal preference. We all had different opinions about the book. The book worked for some of us, for others it didn't. Its not personal, its just a matter opinion. Everyone is severely over reacting to this small comment.
I would have to agree with Amy S. when she says that how the world receives the authors work is up to the reader. Everyone is different and has different views. Also, the author is not able to please everyone and I feel that Foer is trying to write something that he would enjoy reading, and also wants to write things that people can relate to and know something about. He wrote about September 11th and everyone knows that date. Everyone had some sort of feelings on that day, and that is what Foer wants. He wants people’s emotions to show and also wants people to see the different views that everyone has.
I do feel that every author does write for some audience. Foer’s audience is probably not children, but I think that he is writing to anyone who wants to read something “believable” and something that is meaningful. Foer’s style of writing helps him to draw people in because using pictures and all of the other graphics in the novel catch people’s eye. Someone looking through books at the store are going to be more attracted to a novel with color and pictures in it because not every other novel has those things. I feel like Foer is trying to appeal to the readers through his pictures and unique additions to the novel.
So, once again I would like to add on to the debate of Foer's conroversial comment that Updike was "not the right reader for the book." As I said before, I do not think that this was his way of shirking off Updike's poor review, being a bad loser, or "his way of being okay and being able to take the criticism gracefully"(Amy S.) I really do believe that there is a catagory of people that are fit to read this book who can get out of it all that Foer expected and I also believe that Updike does not lie within this catagory. Moreover, I think that it is also true that when Foer first wrote this book he may not have had a specific audience in mind, as Taylor R mentioned, but that audience has certainly established itself over time, consisting of those who have read Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and enjoyed it, intimacy and all. However, I feel as though I am backtracking, so lets move on.
Continuing my argument wiht Keaton, I must once again disagree with him. "A novel which is intended to . . . evoke emotion should relate to all readers"(Keaton.) I believe that even though something was made with the attempt to evoke emotion, it may not be successful. It seems as though Updike was simply caught up with analyzing the book in a logical way, like how Oskar was a "wised-up nine year old"(Updike) and that interfeared with him really getting into the novel and becoming emotionally attached, or rather, involved. I do not doubt that Updike was touched, even if only a little, every once in a while when reading the novel but for the most part I think that his logical way of thinking may have hindered his emotional experience. With that said, I would like to address Keaton and explain that this is what I was talking about when I mentioned that Updike was "not in the right place"(Me qtd, in Keaton) to read Foer's piece. I did not mean to imply that he is uneducated or in any way less "learned"(Keaton) than he clearly is. I think perhaps he jsut did not have the right mindset going into it.
Lastly, I do not think that those who have continued to comment on this element of the interview are "severely over reacting"(Amy.) I believe that we are simpy having a civilized conversation, debate if you will, as to how different people interpret different things. To say that one is "severely over reacting" implies that there is negativity within the topic at hand which I also do not think is the case. I am aware that my words, as well as those of others, often seem rather harsh, but I am almost positive they are not intended to be. Take right now for example, I am rambling on about one little comment. It may seem that I am over reacting but in fact I am saying all that I have to say on the matter without any interuptions, which is the beauty of writing and I intend to take advantage of it.
Like Becca said, "I really do believe that there is a catagory of people that are fit to read this book who can get out of it all that Foer expected." However, it is unlikely that any one reader will perfectly understand every meaning that an author had in mind. Some people are going to like everything, some will like parts, and some won't like it at all. But that's the beauty of writing. Foer offered more than a story, but a story enhanced by artwork and risks in style.
In the interview, Foer says, "I read books that change my life. That make me look at things differently" (Foer). I believe he was influenced to give a reader more than just a single story, but a piece of artwork. Everyone knows that "there is no Oskar in the world" (Foer). But as an author, Foer hopes that when "the book is given to a reader, the effects become very, very real" (Foer).
It is natural that different oppinions and critiques are developed when a book is written. But the only thing an author can hope for is to postively grab readers' attentions. And like Becca said, "Updike does not lie within this category" of satisfaction (Becca).
After reading Extremely Loud and Icredibly Close, acompanied with this interview and Jonathan Updike's review, I have come to have a great respect for not only Foer, but all authors in general. The interview especially has made me really focus on exactly how much work goes into writing a book and although I have pondered it before, I have never put this much in depth thought to it. Furthermore, when Colin mentioned that he believes Foer "was influenced to give a reader more than just a single story, but a piece of artwork" I could not help but to fix my mind on the idea that Foer is a true artist, not just an author, even though that tittle means nothing less. He is not only an artist in the respect that he has made a magnificent novel but also in the fact that he has harnessed the skill of perfectly blending pictures into his book, a very unique style indeed.
On another topic, I completley agree with Colin when he mentioned that, "it is unlikely that any one reader will perfectly understand every meaning that an author had in mind." Even though I did say in my last blog that, "I really do believe that there is a catagory of people that are fit to read this book who can get out of it all that Foer expected"(Qtd. by Colin.) What I meant by that is that there is a legitimate group of people that can be considered the right readers. Those being the persons that can connect with this book on an emotional level. I certainly do not think that Foer would expect any one reader to discover every single detail that Foer put into his piece, also I believe that Foer would not even want this to happen. If everyone saw this novel "perfectly", it would not be nearly as great as it is. When I said that the "right readers" of this book would get out of it everything that Foer expected I did not mean that they would connect with every single element. They would simply connect with the novel on an emotional level, similar to the way that I did, which I believe is "all that Foer expected"(me qtd. in Colin,) could ask for, or even wants.
I will be completely honest, as I was reading the book I wasn't loving every minute of it. There were times when the story seemed long and drawn out, there were times when the novel seemed unbelievable, things Oskar said that I wish he wouldn't have but as I finished the book, read the interview with Foer, and started blogging I have gained a whole new level of respect for the book. Towards the end of the book there are some messages that touched me, some instances where I really felt for the characters. Clearly a lot went into the book, perhaps more than any of us could ever realize. My point is that we all have had different experiences reading the book and I didn't truly like and appreciate the book until I'd finally started understanding where Foer was coming from, and what he was trying to do.
Ah, the fiercely debated topic of "not the right reader for the book." When you catorgorize people into being the right and wrong readers for the book you shouldn't only group people by age, gender, people with emotion, people without emotion, or any otherwise obvious trait but should also consider what the reader hopes to accomplish from reading the book, and what the reader has preconceptualized the book as. John Updike is a critic, someone well educated and well read, but still a critic. John Updike says, "This reader’s heart slightly sank when he realized that he was going to spend more than three hundred pages in the company of an unhappy, partially wised-up nine-year-old." Updike simply went into the novel thinking something along the lines of: "Hey look, this book has gotten a lot of attention. Well, seeing as how I'm a book critic, I owe it to my readers to give this book a review. About 300 pages, it should take me a night." If you were a book critic what would you be looking for in a book? You would probably want a smooth read, you would probably want the book to be engaging and fun (or if not fun for it to evoke another strong emotion throughout), and believable, something you can relate to. Although a great book, this book does not fit many of these stereotypes. The writing style is very modern, Foer doesn't hit the return key after someone is done speaking, Foer uses seemingly random (of course they are not really random, but are hard to interperate) pictures. Foer even strings together three pages of numbers. This does not scream smooth read to me and obviously did not scream it to Updike either. This book is not meant to be fun because, despite a sparse scattering of jokes, it's about an overly mature nine-year-old boy of whom is depressed and tries to lock his feelings inside or about a pair of dysfunctional grandparents of whom lost everything in Dredsen. Finally many of the circumstances shown in this book are extraordinary, and not very believable at all. Updike says things like, "an unusually permissive and remote working mother", and "a nine-year-old atheist whose immediate family consists of a dog called Buckminster". Updike is clearly too distracted by these simple events to grasp the point of the novel (I mean come on, what he took away from the novel is that the kid had a dog? (which isn't even accurate because it's a cat!!!))
I know that some of the ways I've been categorizing the novel are harsh, but I'm doing it to prove a point. Clearly Updike was not the right reader for the book, not because of his age, intelligence, or emotional capacity, but because he took the book at face value and hardly gave it a chance. He did not take the time to see the innocence and emotional turmoil inside this angry and mature nine year old, he failed to grasp why his mom would let him embark on this quest, and he fails to grasp why Foer chooses the pictures and writing techniques he does. Only by embracing this entire novel, understanding the themes, the meaning behind the words, and the writing style of Foer can one truly enjoy this novel. Updike clearly did not try and was focused on writing an entertaining intelligent review. Mr. Updike is entitled to his opinion but in these ways he was not the right reader for the book.
Foer says "A book is an intimate object whether you are conscious of it when you are writing it or not."
In this instance it appears as if Updike wasn't conscious of it.
Post a Comment