Please use this page to post ideas or topics you have discovered but that are not addressed in the other posted topics. Share your insights, opinions, commentaries freely, but continue to generate a discussion rather than a list of separate ideas that do not interconnect.
155 comments:
In Oskar’s book of the things that happened to him, he has a picture of some of the keys at the key shop, all alike, yet all different (53). Even though the keys look similar, each has an individual lock to open and each is needed for a different purpose. In many ways, these keys and Oskar’s search for the lock signify the needs in his life. Not only does he use the search as a way to grieve his dad’s death, gain attention, and find companionship, but also, the search helps Oskar to find his own purpose.
Before his death, Oskar’s dad challenged him by creating expeditions and problems to solve. The expeditions kept Oskar from “zipping up the sleeping bag of [himself]” and gave him a goal while unconsciously achieving a greater goal of finding what made him happy and, eventually, finding his purpose (6). One night after reading A Brief History In Time, Oskar questions his own importance, to which his dad replies, “Well what would happen if a plane dropped you in the middle of the Sahara Desert and you picked up a single grain of sand with tweezers and moved it one millimeter?” (86). Because of Oskar’s insecurities, Oskar finds it hard to live outside his daily routine, meet new people, and understand his own importance. But through his search for the lock, Oskar is able to grow in many ways, one of which being that he is slowly taught that, like the key he finds in the vase, he is one of millions but still has an individual purpose and the ability to completely change history.
The scene where Oskar encounters an old childhood figure, Thomas, left me curious about a lot of Oskar's feelings and view.
A young boy of Oskar's age who poses naked for a man he has not seen in some time is not even the least bit curious as to why he would want to do something like that? For a person who does not like many things and someone who is easily aggitated it was weird that he felt so close to this man to pose for him and even have sex with him. The maybe the journey his Dad had set him up to go on has opened him up to a lot of things, but mostly, it has changed him.
It seems to be that Oskar has stopped his main focus on determining where the key fits, but more of what he has to do and where he has to go to find that answer.
Oskar lived no regrets of having intercourse with that man, and then asked him if he would marry him and the man said "yes" and "no", which was very random, than again so is everything he has encountered.
I think Oskar will be finding the answer to where the key goes soon because there is not too many distractions around him. His cautious and neurautic self will lead him to the "light at the end of the tunnel" journey.
I disagree Emily because I think Oskar does have a lot of distractions around him so he will not be able to find the answer to where the key goes soon.
First of all on page (51) it says that he wrote a letter to his french teacher saying he would not be going to french anymore. French would have been a big distraction. Another distraction was the play he still had to be in. This took time away from his search. One more distraction is that everywhere he goes he sits and talks to the people and they usually have something to show him which takes time out of his search. For example, when he visits A.R. Black he sits and listens to a description of the mans life. He also gets distracted with the biographical index.
It seems to me that everywhere Oskar goes he gets distracted by something so I think it will take a long time for Oskar to find where the key goes because he keeps getting disracted by either his own life (plays, french lessons, etc.) or by the people he visits.
The renter is very interesting. Oskar’s Grandmother keeps the identity of the renter from everyone even Oskar’s mother. His mother talks about the renter as a make-believe friend “Maybe she needs an imaginary friend” (70). She doesn’t know that the renter is really a person. Also, all of the times Oskar is at his grandma’s house he never looks at the guest room, as curious as Oskar is he never looks in there? Then Oskar meets the renter, but still doesn’t know the truth, now the renter has kept his identity secret in respect of Oskar’s grandmother. The feelings of the renter are also interesting, he could never send the letters to his son, probably because he feared that Oskar’s Grandmother wouldn’t give them to him, or he didn’t really want his son to know him. I also think its odd that he could never get real feelings for Oskar’s Grandmother, for all that time with living with her he was just using her to make an effort to get closer to her sister. For example when he was making a sculpture of Oskar’s Grandmother it really wasn’t of her it was of Anna. I think there is much more to the renter than what I have said but those are just a few things I thought were interesting.
I’m still not quit sure what the hand means on the front of the book, does anyone have ideas?
I agree with Anna F that the renter is interesting. I think the book and the title have a lot to do with him. She is also right to think it odd that the renter can't develop feelings for Oskar's grandma. He was just so madly in love with Anna that he couldn't let go of her, though he was married to another woman.
Something I find odd is Oskar's grandma didn't ever question her husband's love for her. She didn't seem jealous that he loved someone else more and she didn't try to make him fall in love with her. Any woman in this time period would give anything to make a man fall in love with her. However, she just continued to be herself. She also didn't try very hard to convince him to stay when he decided he was going to leave her. I wonder if she was even in love with him at all. I think she married him because she was lonely and desperate and he was a familiar face. And her husband married her to have a connection with Anna, to feel close to her somehow. The whole situation, to me, is very sad. I can't imagine being so lonely that I ask my sister's lover to marry me the moment I reconnect with him after so many years. I also can't imagine being so broken-hearted that I can't bring myself to say certain words, and eventually lose the ability to speak. The fact that the two found each other in another country is either fate or a gift, or both. But they didn't take advantage of it. They never talked about their problems or their concerns and they didn't try to help the other. They didn't express their feelings for one another, if there were any at all. The gift went wasted and they seemed more depressed when they were together, which I can't understand.
In the novel, the images of sex are described very clearly and I find them a bit disturbing. On page 84, Oskar's grandma describes the time she lost her virginity. This is awkward for two reasons: one, she was describing the experience to her grandson which is weird and two, it was described so thoroughly.
This scene made me sad because Oskar's grandma did it so that Oskar's grandpa would fall in love with her. She said, "He was sculpting me. he was trying to make me so he could fall in love me. In my opinion, Oskar's grandma lost her virginity for all the wrong reasons. She wanted to make Thomas fall in love with her, but you should be in love before ever do something like that. It's sad to me that the grandfather says he will only do it from behind, so that he can pretend that Oskar's grandma is someone else. This scene in the novel really made me uncomfortable.
Some of the perts of the novel where sex is described make my jaw drop a little because the author describes them in a way that you can picture it perfectly.
I do agree with Alexandra in saying that some of sexual content in this book can be a little awkward. However, I do think it's neccessary and I appreciate the realistic and non-cliche writing that Foer offers.
Oskar's grandmother found someone when she was lonely and the same goes for her "lover." But what Foer bluntly covers is that not all people can be in love after that first encounter of after that first sexual experience. In a succeeding chapter after the one that Cassandra was explaining, the man says, "I open doors for her but I never touch her back as she passes through, she never lets me watch her cook, she golds my pants but leaves my shirts by the ironing board, I never light candles when shes's in the room, but I do blow candles out" (108). This doesn't sound like compassion, it sounds like strict rules you would find at some sort of boot camp. These aquaintances are not emotionally open with one another, they are walking on egg shells and simply don't want to see what they should be regretting.
Although some of these scenes really are a little awkard, they offer realism, and Foer presents something that in no way is a cliche love story, but they had to make it work, even if the true feelings were not quite there. Without that style of writing, we wouldn't feel the awkwardness that these characters felt at the time. That is something to appreciate from this author.
Through his descriptions, Foer is able to connect with his audience’s emotions, whether though making them uncomfortable or understanding. He wants his readers to understand what the characters are feeling and why, and as Collin V says, “Without [Foer’s] style of writing, we wouldn't feel the awkwardness that these characters felt at the time.”
In many ways, Foer is trying to show the importance of communicating emotions. Bri S is right that the relationship between Oskar’s grandfather and grandmother only happened because they were both “lonely and desperate.” The night before they were married, Tom told Oskar’s grandmother that “[he was] looking for an acceptable compromise,” and a compromise is exactly what she gave him (84). Since they were both so desperate to be loved, they did not want to push the other away, and therefore, did not show their emotions or ask about the other’s. By fully describing their awkward relationship full of compromise and nothing spaces, Foer is able to show his audience the importance of communication, and especially communicating emotions. I do not think that Oskar’s grandmother ever really loved Tom, but instead, she was just looking for a way to feel loved. Since neither married the other for the right reasons, and neither of them are willing to challenge the other or themselves to live without love, they continually grow apart, but never in love, from their efforts to please the other.
I completely agree with Brooke L W when she said,” By fully describing their awkward relationship full of compromise and nothing spaces, Foer is able to show his audience the importance of communication, and especially communicating emotions." She, as well as colin v, states how important Foer's dramatic and detailed stories of Oskar's grandparents' relationship are to the audience. It not only helps the reader to connect with the characters on an emotional level, but also establishes understanding and reasoning.
This detailed communication is important for the audience; however, it leads me to question how effective it is between the characters themselves. Although we as readers are able to see exactly what each character is thinking, I believe that the emotional as well as physical communication between Oskar's grandparents is weak. Their whole relationship is built around secrets, and if you ask me, secrets are the ultimate barrier in communication between two people and if kept inside too long, secrets have the ability of destruction. Oskar’s grandma says, “There were things I wanted to tell him. But I knew they would hurt him. So I buried them, and let them hurt me” (181). By not allowing herself to be open to her husband she eventually creates more of an unhappy environment for their relationship.
I also believe that Oskar’s grandpa has poor communication skills because he knew from the very beginning that he did not love her. His heart and mind were completely centered on Anna. The scene where he is sculpting Oskar’s grandma makes me feel very angry and sad at the same time. Oskar’s grandma says, “After only a few sessions it became clear that he was sculpting Anna. He was trying to remake the girl he knew seven years before…He was trying to make me so he could fall in love with me” (83). I get angry because they both know that they are not in love; however, they use each other hoping they will get the feeling of being wanted, needed, and accepted. Why would you want to be with someone who will only accept you and love you by changing and viewing you as someone else? How could this possibly reward one with the feeling of love?
Foer's way of showing this complicated relationship is something that is very hard to do. He creates understanding with the reader but at the same time is able to show the confusion, chaos, and complex emotions that these two characters experience during their relationship. And this is what creates such an intense book that is easy to relate to.
The Renter is a very mysterious character. In a lot of ways, his role later in the novel is rather confusing.
It is suspicious that Oskar's grandmother, as well as his mother have given Oskar's grandpa the title "the renter." By definition, a renter is either somebody who rents a home for himself or rents out a home to another. And renting itself suggests that there is no real ownership and the conditions are temporary. Is this not parallel to the relationship of Oskar's grandma and grandpa?
Even Oskar’s grandma is openly aware of the idea that her husband still longs for her sister and does not love her. It would seem that she does not truly love him either. Even when their relationship begins with him asking her if he can sculpt her, it became clear [to Oskar’s grandma ] that he was sculpting Anna” (83).It is as if he wants Anna but can not have her, so he settles with somebody who reminds him of her. Therefore, he is a renter. Oskar’s grandma is a temporary solution to his broken heart. He rents his heart to her but in reality, the owner is Anna.
He could also be considered a renter because his role in the novel and in the lives of the characters is so temporary. He leaves Oskar’s grandmother when he finds out she is pregnant, returns when she begs him, and leaves again soon after. However, he has obviously returned once again if Oskar is able to find him in the apartment. This series of leaving and returning reflects how temporary his presence is, which much like renting.
At the beginning of the chapter on page 224, Oskar’s grandmother begins, “I was in the guest room when it happened,” when describing the interview with a lost girl’s father on the news. I see no reason for her to be in the bedroom that the renter stays in if they are not in a relationship Perhaps he is referred to as the renter merely because he rents a room in the apartment, but it would seem to be a lot more than that.
Micheal C brings up a valid point when he talks about how many distractions Oskar trully has, his play, french, and most importantly the interesting people he meets and the everything they poses. Mentally or physically. These distractions are said to keep him from finding the lock that the key belongs to. But i beleive that finding the key is irrelevant. Finding the lock isnt what truly matters, its more Oskar finding himself and his place in the world, and i think his father knew that. When Oskar's father sent him on "Reconnaissance Expeditions" there was never a significant or meaningful purpose to the task. Or that i drew from it any purpose at all. It was the experience of the journey that was the real purpose for playing the game Oskar, and was much more important than the literal task.
I know this is a little off topic, but did anyone notice that Oskar's last detective thing with his father was about finding metal and a key is metal? It is like Oskar is finishing his last game with his father. Maybe that is why Oskar tried so hard to find the owner to the key; he regestered it in his mind as their last game without realizing it. It just made me think, that is all.
I would have to agree Micheal C and Garrett E about all of the distractions in Oskar's life. It is obvious that his extra curricular activities are keeping him from looking for what the key goes to. If not, then why did he send a letter to his french teacher saying that he no longer can go to classes anymore? Another distraction is the school play. He has to learn and memorize all of his lines and go to practice. This obviously takes time away from going and meeting all of the Blacks in the New York area. One last distraction is actually his mission. While meeting all of the Blacks, he gets distracted and starts having conversattons with them. An example is when he meets Mr Black. He ends up staying at his house looking around for a couple of hours. This just proves that Oskar has many distractions in his life. But it also shows that he really loved his father and even with these distractions, he still ends up finding what the mysterious key opens.
Alexandra m w said that “in the novel, the images of sex are described very clearly and I find them a bit disturbing” which is true, but i think waht makes them so akward is the total lack of any positive emotional response. Sex is supposed to be a connection between two people, if not with love than at least some attraction. With Oskar’s grandparents however it’s more of mating ritual. What i found really disturbing was that neither of them seemed to enjoy it at all. The grandfather says, “I am looking for an acceptable compromise” right after caressign her hair, which, to me, sounded like he was trying to make something extrmely unpleasant at least bearable. (84) Oskar’s grandmother says, “It felt like crying. I wondered, Why does anyone ever make love?” (84)
The odd thing is that in this book we don’t see any positive physical relationships. Aside from from some dirty jokes and grandpa talking about paying for sex (and still thinking about his ex wife and/or Anna) we get no other mentions of sex at all. It’s like
sex is considered a negative, undesirable thing.
Did anyone else notice this or did I forget some good relationships?
Foer uses names, language, and even simple comments that tie together his novel and reveal deeper meaning. In the first chapter when we are introduced to Oskar, we learn a lot about his personality, and more specifically, we begin to see that he is determined to call people and items exactly what they are. For example, he corrects his mom by saying he gave the key to a mailwomen not a mailman (6), and when he says, “Grandma gave me a subscription to Nation Geographic, which she call ‘the National Geographic,’” it is obvious that names and titles of items are significant to him (3). For these reasons, I completely agree with Kenny N that there is significance to the title “the Renter” and his reasoning makes a lot of sense.
Even though Oskar is busy, some of his distractions do not seem to be a problem, and instead, may actually be helping him. Nicole C commented, “It is obvious that [Oskar’s] extra curricular activities are keeping him from looking for what the key goes to.” Although this may be true and the novel is based on Oskar’s search for the lock, it seems that Oskar’s search for the lock is more of a search for himself or his purpose. Through learning about the Black’s, Oskar is able to obtain new facts and learn more about his interests, such as when he tells Abby Black about the woman recording elephants (94), and then realizing his interest, he is motivated to write to Dr. Kaley and ask to be her assistant (197). And through being distracted by his school play, he is able to learn that he needs to stand up for his grandma and himself (144). Through his experiences, Oskar is able to learn more about himself, which is same goal he is achieving while searching for the lock.
Like the other people posting on this blog, I also find the relationship between Oskar’s grandparents to be very complicated and intriguing. Oskar’s grandmother says in her letter “We never talked about the past.” (pg. 83) This struck me as being very ironic, considering how the grandparents’ relationship seems to have developed out of a desperate need to find some resemblance of the past in their new lives in America. This is demonstrated on pg 84: “I looked at the unfinished sculpture of my sister and the unfinished girl stared back at me.”
From this quote we can see that Oskar’s grandfather is still completely in love with Anna. He has become so desperate to hold onto his feelings for her that he agrees to marry her younger sister, the entire time pretending that it is really Anna herself. At the same time Oskar’s grandmother seems to be attempting to fool herself into believing that what she and Thomas have is real, when she really just wants someone to care about. I think the two are both so tragically lonely that they feel they must pretend; it seems to me that their feelings for each other are not love.
On page 124, there is a turning point in the life they have started however. Thomas comes to find that his wife has been practically blind (literary and figuratively) the entire time. I believe that this is the point when he realizes that their lives are merely an illusion, designed to distance them selves rather than to bring them closer together. Between the nothing spaces and the rules, their “love” for each other is more like what one would find in a play: an interpretation of reality, but never the actual thing. This is why the life story that Oskar’s grandmother has written is blank, because in reality it is all nothing and her husband must act like it is in fact something. Like Brooke L said “Since neither married the other for the right reasons, and neither of them are willing to challenge the other or themselves to live without love, they continually grow apart, but never in love, from their efforts to please the other.” Although Oskar’s grandmother seems desperate to be with his grandfather, I think she subconsciously knows that they do not share any authentic connection but at the same time she refuses to acknowledge it and “see the empty”, which is why she allows him to come and go without trouble. Kenny N commented on why he becomes the renter, “renting itself suggests that there is no real ownership and the conditions are temporary. Is this not parallel to the relationship of Oskar's grandma and grandpa?” I agree; whatever harmony that the couple can find together is always fleeting. I think this is a statement about how Oskar seems to feign his happiness, while on the inside he is filled with sorrow and is unsatisfied with his life. I think it is also a testament to the complexity of relationships in this book, and how most seem to be designed in the hopes of pleasing others while fighting one’s own loneliness.
Laureen e p said, “Oskar seems to feign his happiness, while on the inside he is filled with sorrow and is unsatisfied with his life,” which is a good point, though I don’t think he feigns his happines. He is very straigthforward with his mother when he says, “I am not trying to find ways to be happy, and I won’t.”(171) That is also incredibly ironic because I think the quest for the mystery of the key has made him happy and brought him peace.
Relationships in this book are not only incredibly complicated, but they don’t work at all. Characters find happiness or peace in past memories and isolation. Mr Black lives his life obssesed with his dead wife; he “hammered a nail into the bed every morning since she died” (161) and, even before she died, he was obsessed in war and journalism. That was his little crusade and he describes it as “things i needed too” (161). It’s like people can’t coexist together and always need to find some escape. One of the other Black families actually build a museum to each other, so, in a way, they are also living in the past. Instead of enjoying each other they immerse themselves in the past.
Ron and Oskar’s mom also meet because they both share a tragedy in the past.
And the lady in the Empire State Building? ‘nuff said.
Not only do romantic relationships don’t work, but sons are also always looking for the past and their fathers.
It’s like the present just doesn’t work for anyone in this book.
Olga says that relationships in this book don't work. To a point I agree with this especially with certain characters. One character I believe is not "living in the past" (Olga) but doing the exact opposite is Oskar's mom. She is trying to move on with her life by finding someone else to spend her time with and maybe love. Oskar even finds himself wanting her to live more in the past and not replace his dad with Ron. Even though Oskar's mom is living in the present, she still thinks of the past and will not forget. Oskar does not see this side of her, and there for works to become the opposite and almost makes himself live in the past and not forget his dad. But, as he is only nine, I think he wants to move on, but the thought of forgetting his dad holds him back.
This novel presses some very unpressed buttons. From the way Foer describes sex between Oskar’s grandparents to the elements of the past, present, and future. Breanna C said that Oskar’s mom is the only character who doesn’t live in the past. Of course this depends on what extent she believes to be living in the past, but I do not know if I agree with her. For Oskar and his grandparents the past is full of both sad and happy memories. Thomas wants to remember only the happy memories, but can only seem to recall the loss and unfairness of his past. Because all the memories end up having the same effect on his mind, he tries to shut out his past completely. Yes, there are times when he tries to relive some things, like trying to vision Oskar’s grandmother as her sister when they are having sex (p. 84). The affects of his past cause him to be empty and depressed. I believe living in the past is someone who is denial that it is indeed the past and they are now ahead of that time. However, Thomas has come to terms with the fact that Anna is gone. I know this because he says he is looking for an acceptable compromise (p.84). One cannot compromise without coming to terms that he will not have his way entirely. Thomas and Anna had a love so passionate and deep, they shared an unborn life together. Some readers sound to me like they cannot understand that once you experience that type of love and loss, you are never ever going to be the same person.
Thomas would rather be with Anna, but the reality is that she is gone. So Thomas tries to stay sane and normal, but he slowly loses his words and his mind. His mind comes back, but his spirit stays behind in his past. That leaves us, the readers, with a lifeless character, whose past is far more alive and interesting than his present. Foer tells the tale of life, without sugar-coating it. In one of my annotations I wrote that this novel is probably easier to understand if one is or ever has been depressed. This book carries with it, a heavy, intense sorrow that depressed people can relate to. For some people, happiness is the long term emotion to life, with occasional spells of sadness. For others, depression is the long term emotion to life, with occasional spells of happiness. Because Thomas has lived the majority of his life in loss, and not in love, his long term emotion is depression. He has been running on empty for almost his whole life. This is what he is used to, he can hardly even remember what is was like to have a full tank. The love that he and Anna shared was amazing as it was, then adding the fact that she was pregnant with their child is too much to bear. The saddest part to me isn’t what they did have and lost, but rather what they could have had. Thomas had to live a life that ended up being completely different than what he pictured. Because of one thing that happened his entire life changed. Your past shapes your future, so it is difficult to let go of it, no matter how hard one tries to let go, as I believe Thomas tried to do.
When Breanna C W said " She is moving on with her life,” referring to Oskar’s mother. I agree with that statement. She is moving on to an extent, she still remembers her husband and loves him. I don't think she will ever stop loving him because they were married and loved each other very much.
In a way I think Ron is somewhat of a rebound for Oskar's mother. She is used to having a companion a partner if you will, and losing that partner unexpectedly would rock anyone I think Ron gives her that feeling of a partner but maybe not a permanent companion.
But to add insult to injury there is also Oskar, and I think she feels bad for Oskar because his Father was taken away from him at such an early age.
I've also noticed that in this book Oskar's grandfather seems to like being very isolated. At least he does everything to isolate himself.
For one thing he doesn't ever talk which isolates him from almost everyone. Also while he lives with the one person who loves him, Oskar's grandmother, he makes up nothing space where he can isolate himself from even her. And in the end he ends up moving away from her and isolating himself completly. Even when he first meets Oskar he is isolated from Oskar as shown on page (237) when it says, "We stood there. He was in the room. I was in the hall. The door was open, but it felt like there was an invisible door between us because I didn't know what to say to him and, he didn't know what to write to me." This shows that also from isolating himself for so long he doesn't even know how to talk to his own grandson.
Alexandra M said, "In the novel, the images of sex are described very clearly and I find them a bit disturbing." This quote got me thinking. Now, i personally dont think the images of sex were that terrifyingly described, but thats not the point of this comment.Tis book (in my eyes) is about life. So Alexandra's whole comment (not just the quote from above) made me think of how when all the material objectives are stripped away from our lives what is left? Birth, growth, love, reproduction, death. Foer portrays all of these elements in the novel, and all of them so clearly.He writes about them so beautifully that we as the readers are dropped into the story and can feel and see exactly whats happening.
The way Foer talks about the sex in his novel is open, it is not behind closed doors or considered evil. He openly describes it because thats how life is. Sex happens. And for Oskar's grandmother, thats how it happened. Yes, it is extremely sad that she gave her virginity away just to try to make Thomas love her, but thats real life. Death happens, Oskar lost his father, Thomas lost his parents and Anna. Foer wants the reader to know that life is this exact way, it does't bend or hide anything, its straight forward and so thats how he makes his writting. I thought that he did a wonderful job.
I was so touched, so blown away by the way he wrote the scenes with sex. Thomas' first time with Anna, it was behind a shed, in the open, and it was pure and honest. That scene made me cry, which may not have been what Foer meant to get out of his readers but its what it did to me. Great writing makes you feel, great writing gets reactions out of the readers. The scene where Oskars grandmother and Thomas have sex for the first time also made me cry, Foer just uses such poetry when hes writing about things that make up life. He never hides anything, or makes it seem evil. I loved how he wrote those scenes. They weren't over done and they told the reader just enough. Life should be exactly how Foer makes it, open, honest, pure, and not always happy.
Oskar’s journey to find the lock that the key opens does obviously effects his emotions. It makes me wonder when Olga S. states, “I think the quest for the mystery of the key has made [Oskar] happy and brought him peace.” Has Oskar really ended up happy? Is he now in peace? I believe that the journey of finding the lock has made Oskar feel like he is uncovering a whole other side of his father that he had no understanding of before. I’m not sure however that he really intended on finding anything really important about his fathers life or if the journey was merely started to give him something to do. There is no doubt that Oskar loved his father because on several occasions Oskar did something “like Dad used to do” just for that reason (97). The journey is making Oskar believe that he is going to love his father more in some way because he will understand another thing from his life. Now for the eight months that Oskar searched, I feel that he was satisfied and felt that he was making progress, but then towards the end even Oskar himself stated, “I’m not even sure I believed in the lock anymore.” While at the beginning of the search Oskar may have been happy, I feel towards the end he was unsatisfied and not pleased with how everything happened. Also, I feel that Oskar was not at peace once he found out what the key was actually to. Oskar seemed upset and felt that his father was maybe not as mysterious and secretive as he may have thought. That could be because there is no other side of his father’s life that was left undiscovered. So overall Oskar’s feelings were not happiness or peace. Oskar may have been at peace because the journey was over, but not because of how it ended up.
Oskar's inventions are worth exploring. The fact that these imaginative ideas are due to his sadness has been brought up in other topics. However, I think Oskar's late night inventions and lines that Foer includes (though sometimes seeming beyond his age) classify as a theme of their own. Despite the fact that Oskar is truly mature for his age, Foer still captures a great deal of innocence, and in doing so, he successfully makes things seem more precious through the eyes of a child.
Sure the inventions that Oskar musters up while rustling in his sheets seem obsurd, and sometimes even humorous. A Reservoir of Tears - too big. Mencils (pencils for men) - irrelevant. A chemical in the shower to accomodate one's mood - too impractical. "How about a [talking/interactive] teakettle" (1)? No, too magical. But are these things really TOO anything? Or are these inventions a representation of the innocence that everyone loses over time and the vulnerability that ceases everyone from wanting to face painful realization?
I don't think it matters the age; everyone wants things to play out like they do in a child's mind. Foer beautifully creates the innocent, yet common, way of dealing with loss, even if it is through a boy's eyes. Although a boy, Oskar is dealing with the loss of his father. He just wants him back. Foer coats this beautiful story with Oskar's innocent and desperate inventions, and with lines from Oskar: "The secret was a hole in the middle of me that every happy thing fell into" (71). Honestly, this sounds a little beyond Oskar's age. But I believe that was intended. It captures a theme lived by all: suffering is anyone's burden.
Foer, as a whole, connects to people through Oskar's general adventure as well. How often do people feel, after any loss, that they could do something afterwards to fulfill their minds or sustain an ultimate closure? Yes, in terms of death, there are funerals. But Oskar wanted more. He "needed to do something, like sharks, who die if they don't swim" (87). For putting words in such an Oskar way, Foer truly speaks for all people. I think in a modest and quiet manner, Foer included a theme of moving on while never forgetting at the same time. Complete fulfillment never finds its way after loss, and that's why those two work hand in hand.
Through even the simplest ideas, Foer is able to bring depth into his novel. As Collin V stated, “Oskar is truly mature for his age.” But although Oskar is able to obtain random facts, read complex books, carry on mature conversations, and, in most cases, live in a manner that most nine-year-old boys cannot, it is obvious that he still struggles with understanding and accepting the process of life: “birth, growth, love, reproduction, [and] death” (Amanda R W). And in many ways, Oskar’s inventions portray his desire to escape the life process, especially the less appealing aspects such as death.
The most obvious of Oskar’s struggles is the inability to cope with the loss of his father. Even though Oskar does not enjoy the pain accompanying the loss, he is unwilling to move on and possibly forget some memories of his father. Through inventing air bags for skyscrapers (160), pockets big enough for our families (74), and “a device that knew everyone you knew . . . [so] as an ambulance went down the streets . . . it would flash ‘Goodbye! I love you!’” (73), Oskar searches for ways to avoid death and pain, although both vital parts to the life process, and refuses to accept that “suffering is anyone’s burden” (Collin V F).
Most of Oskar’s inventions are solutions to death or suffering, but others are connected to other problems. His chemical that reveals what everyone feels by changing their skin color is his solution to unspoken emotions (163). And an extremely long limousine that stretches to your destination is the solution to his traveling fears (5). Through his inventions, no matter how unrealistic, Oskar is able to imagine ways to avoid reality and whatever reasons he may have heavy boots.
I would like to expand Colin’s statement that this book captures “a theme lived by all: suffering is anyone’s burden.” This is very true and i think if you think about this you could continue the sentence like this: if suffering is anyone’s burden and so many people expirience it, they can help each other and come together in suffering.
I think this is one of the themes that the book (and oskar) explore. This is also the answer that Oskar finds to overcoming his loss, because, by the end of the book, he finally wants his mom to be happy; he has met, helped, and made friends with a variety of people; he has also learned about their problems and suffering, as well as their ways of overcoming it.
Not only that but a lot of Oskar’s inventions have to do with communicating or coming together in some way. A Reservoir of Tears, for example, would bring everyone’s suffering together in one place, and, in doing so, show people that they are not alone in their pain. A chemical in the shower to accomadate one’s mood would help people communicate by letting them know what the other person feels. It would also help them help other people—if a person is sad, you might cheer them up; if they are lost you might help them find the way, etc. Even the ambulance that displays the person’s condition (73) is also about telling people what’s up and bringing them closer (i.e. getting all of the victims friends and family to the hospital).
So, in the end, I think this book is about one’s loss and ways of dealing with it. This could also be the idea behind Oskar’s quest.
(P.S. this is kinda off topic, but when Oskar saw his father’s name written all over the art supply store, did anyone have a “Curious incident of the dog” moment and think “HE’s ALIVE” Just wondering, because i spent the rest of the book waiting for him to jump out and surprise us. )
There is a line in the upcoming film The Dark Knight, where the Joker, played by the late great Heath Ledger, is asked what he believes in. He replies by saying, "I believe that whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you...stranger." No, this is not a mistype, for those of you thinking that I meant to write stronger, for that is the more often used phrase, but I did mean stranger, and so did the Joker. I think that this is not only more true than the 'stronger' version, but it is true as well in this book. Each character who has had something traumatic happen in their life are each a bit stranger for it. You see this mostly from Oskar's grandfather, who had his city bombed, lost touch witht he love of his life and family, and saw some pretty horrifying things, all in one day. After this he is truly strange. He loses the ability I guess to talk, and instead writes things in a notebook, and a lot of the time they don't make sense. Also the loss of Oskar's father, has made stranger than he already was, like all the fears of things that he has now. This was something I was thinking about and thought it was something really intersting. I would like to hear other opinions about this. This has been Stephen K W saying good luck and goodnight.
I think after tragedy, people do become stronger as well as "stranger," like Stepehen K introduced. If anyone wants to continue on with their lives it is only natural that we become stronger in doing so. However, things do change, and like Oskar shows, people can think of and do stranger things.
The main reason "stranger" works in that phrase so well, Stephen, is that no matter what a person enters into, he or she will come out atleast a little different on the other side. And if that new version of ourselves is different, then we're not as "normal" as we were before. We become "stranger," mainly altered from our previous lives. Anything different seems stranger to us at first.
For Oskar anyhow, I see sort of an inconsistent pattern if you will. And yes, that seems "strange" but it's what I have picked up on. There are numerous times in the book where I have read an Oskar narration and one quote jumps off the page from the rest of they stroy, almost as if it was too beyond Oskar's age to muster up. In response to understanding his own existence, Oskar says, "Just because you're atheist, that doesn't mean you wouldn't love for things to have reasons for why they are" (13). Now personally, I don't see a young boy saying that. But I can see a young boy constantly asking questions without the deep analyzing. Now, take an example of maturity like that and then realize how Oskar, despite his maturity for his age, acts "stranger" after his father's death.
Due to his mother's "friend," Ron, Oskar seems to think that "she [isn't] missing Dad" (36). And when they play music too loud, Oskar says, "I zipped myself all the way into the sleeping bag of myself, not because I was hurt, and not because I had broken something, but becuase they were cracking up. Even though I shouldn't, I gave myself a bruise" (37).
I know that most of Oskar's actions may be rooted with that fact that his father is dead, but ultimately, he's stranger because of it. He is so mature, yet not enough to understand that different people cope with tragedy in different ways. But that may just be stubborness in his part, for any kid needs things to make sense in their own way. Nonetheless, I believe Stephen's proposed quote especially characterizes Oskar.
First of all, to Olga’s p.s., we, as the readers, end up finding out later in the book that it’s Oskar’s grandfather’s name written everywhere in the art store, not his father’s. Oskar’s grandfather goes to the art store to buy clay to sculpt the grandmother. He says, “I wrote my name in blue pen and in green oil stick, in orange crayon and in charcoal…” (p 275). Amanda R said that when life is stripped of the material things what we have is, “birth, growth, love, reproduction, [and] death. She forgot the other key factor: loss. The two things that shape this entire tale of life are loss and love. Olga S says the book is ultimately about one’s loss, but she forgot the other key factor: love. Foer beautifully tells the tale of life. In the novel, before everyone experiences loss, they experience love. Because without love how could you have legitimate loss? In order to miss someone, you have to have had to love them, or at least like that person.
Michael C says that Oskar’s grandmother loved his Grandfather. Correct me if I’m wrong but where in the book does it say that, let alone imply it? She might love the idea of having someone around, but she isn’t in love with him. She was happy for her sister when she found out that she was pregnant with Thomas’ child. She enjoyed watching them kiss. Her sister and her were extremely close. I think that our sympathy for Oskar’s grandfather allows us to forget that he’s not the only one grieving Anna’s death. Oskar’s grandmother lost a sister and a future niece or nephew. So how could she possibly ever fall in love with the man who would have became her brother-in-law?
Rachel S says that Oskar’s parents loved each other very much. Now, I’m not saying they didn’t love each other, but as opposed to us, as the readers, being shown the relationship between Oskar and his father, we never are shown how Oskar’s parents’ relationship was. What if he had been having an affair with someone before he died? What if she had been plotting to kill him? I’m not saying any of these ideas are likely, but Foer never shows their love. I do believe they were in love, but we never actually find out anything about their relationship for a fact. This is another one of the elements of mystery to the novel. Although, in the end, the novel tells the tale of love and loss.
While reading Jennifer M’s comment, I was reminded of the phrase, “Live, love, lose, and learn.” Although Foer may not have been intending for this phrase to be linked with his novel, it seems to connect quite well.
As already mentioned, Foer seems to have based his novel on the idea of love and loss. Jennifer M stated that “before everyone experiences loss, they experience love,” and with that, each of Foer’s characters has experienced love (Oskar loved his dad, Thomas loved Anna, and so on), and each character has experienced losing a person he/she loves. But what makes each of Foer’s characters unique is whether or not they chose to learn from their loss and begin again at “live” like the phrase indicates they should. As some learn and move on with their life, similar to the way Oskar’s mom is, other characters have chosen to dwell on their loss, and with that, cease to live (metaphorically of course).
Although connected by their loss of a loved one, two contrasting characters are Thomas and Oskar’s mom. Through her support group, Oskar’s mom is able to mourn the loss of her husband while also learning and moving on. Although to Oskar it may seem that his mom and Ron are “playing music too loud and cracking up too much,” (37) in reality, she is simply learning to live unlike Oskar’s grandfather who “never talk[s] about the past” and has forgotten to live (108). The two characters were faced with similar experiences but have chosen to respond emotionally in different ways, and because of this, one will move on while the other will continue to mourn.
Jennifer M wisely points out that Oskar's grandmother "might love the idea of having someone around, but she isn’t in love with [Thomas]." But she contradicts her own point, that in order to miss something one must love it first. Why is it beyond one's belief that a person can love and therefore miss an idea? Robert Plutchik identified the root of all human emotion as a dichotomy of anger/fear (fight/flight)(qtd. in IDM and emotions). The absence of anger and fear leads to joy and love, while the presence of one or both leads to more negative emotions. Grandma's love for her husband and lover comes not from her direct positive feelings for the man but rather the absence of fear/anger he creates. Their creation of "nothing spaces" and their refusal to speak about the past events i.e. the bombings in Dresden, created a safe environment in which Grandma felt neither afraid or angry. This led to her love for Thomas, who on the other hand was wrought with fear. Even in his letter to his child he writes, "I'm so afraid of losing something I love that I refuse to love anything" (216). His root emotional dichotomy was tipped toward the negative side of the balance because of his constant fear. Grandma could not help him create an environment in which he felt safe because she constantly reminded him of what he lost and therefore reminded him of his fear.
This brings me to a new question. There are many dualities set forth in this novel, either upfront dualities such as "I heard the roar of that baby's silence" (213), or more subtle pairs much like Mr. and Mrs. Black, or Grandpa and Grandma, or even Oskar's mom and dad. This is clearly a book about relationships, about becoming closer to one another, much like Olga and Collin pointed out. Yet, what about the people that are already, in theory, close to each other, the husbands and wives? They should know the most about each other but it seems as if these couples know less about their counterparts than they would a stranger. Also, can it be possible to "love" someone when you know little about them?
My source was:
IDM and Emotions
Copyright © 2002-2006 C.J. Lofting
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html
In response to Brooke's extremely recent post, I must point once again to the emotional dichotomy of fear/anger. Oskar's mom misses her husband simply because she is afraid of what life will be like without him. She is afraid to move on and live life. But much like Brooke points out, Oskar's mom is able to push through her fear unlike Thomas. Thomas allowed his fear to emotionally cripple him and symbolically cripple his voice, our ability to communicate with words is perhaps one of the greatest abilities of man kind. Yet, according to "Six Tips to show Sexually Confident Body Language" (Yes, I know the source is a little shaky but the point remains), "It’s been said that almost 90% of your communication is done through non-verbal cues." Thomas is the example of this and converses with many people just through his body language.
My source was:
Six Tips To Show Sexually Confident Body Language
http://www.undergroundattraction.com/2007/10/14/six-tips-to-show-sexually-confident-body-language/
I have also noticed that Thomas communicates non-verbally and with body language as Keaton said. For a man who "looses" his words (which I find odd) how else is he suppose to communicate, other than his daybooks?
After thinking that his wife lost most of her eye sight, Thomas cannot communicate through his books, but now can only communicate through touch. When Thomas's wife shows up at the train station right before he is about to leave her, he tries to talk to her with his hands, "I told her that I had to get going. I asked her, with a long series of gestures that would have made no sense to anyone else, if she wanted anything special" (132). It seems that their relationship is only physical.
At the beginning of the blog Anna F P asked what the hand on the front of the book means. I think the hand kind of symbolizes the physical communications with Oskar's grandfather and the unspoken conversations with not only him but other characters as well.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close—though it is a story of a young boy seeking knowledge of his father in order to feel he has properly mourned his death—has a tremendous presence of commentary and criticism on war and how society observers it.
Oskar plays a recorded interview with a woman named Tomoyasu, discussing her experience with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima during World War II, which resulted in between about 65,000 and 200,000 deaths (“How”), including many civilans. The woman was trying to find her daughter after thee bomb had struck. Tomoyasu finds her daughter, badly injured, with “maggots in her wounds and a sticky yellow liquid” (188). As the interviewer listens to her horrific depiction of the bombing, he goes off on tangents, asking the woman to describe the “black rain” and the “mushroom cloud” (188), when the subject of her daughter is so much more important. Tomoyasu ignores the man altogether when he mentions “black rain” and he questions her about the “mushroom cloud” and she merely says she didn’t see it because she was trying to find her daughter (188). The interviewer seems to be indifferent to the emotional loss of Tomoyasu, epitomizing mankind. Countries tend to dehumanize those who they bomb and murder. Tomoyasu makes the point that death is the same regardless of “what uniforms the soldiers are wearing” (189). She makes a striking criticism of mankind, much like that of Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughter-house Five: we shouldn’t feel joy when our enemies are bombed. Also, we should realize that the enemy is not very different from us.
The section “Why I’m Not Where You Are 4/12/78” (208) is Oskar’s grandfather’s account of the Dresden bombings during World War II. David Irving, a historian, estimated 135,000 deaths resulting from the Dresden bombings (“Slaughter”)—possibly more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined, with a high content of civilians. Information about the bombing was kept from the public until years later. Foer creates gruesome images of suffering people begging for help as they are dying. Oskar’s grandpa describes a woman “whose blonde hair and green dress were on fire, running with a silent baby in her arms” (211). He describes many other images that are equally disturbing. Dresden was bombed by the Allied Forces (primarily America and Britain). The point is even though it helped in the defeat of the Nazi regime during World War II, bombs and war are still horrible and should be avoided at all cost.
By including the descriptions of the Hiroshima and Dresden Bombings and the emotional and physical responses of the civilians, Foer sets it parallel to the bombing of the World Trade Center on 9/11—which “killed 2,973 victims” (“War”). The 2,973 people who died on 9/11 affected the lives of an unthinkable amount of people, including Oskar. Just think of how many lives were affected by the deaths of the bombings America has taken part in. This is Foer’s overall purpose. War and bombing affects both sides and both sides are people. He is trying to get people to look outside of the normal apathetic American spectrum and see what war is really about.
Sources:
War Casualties Pass 9/11 Death Toll
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035427.shtml
“How many died at Hiroshima?”
http://www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm
“Slaughter in Dresden”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/Indep_ltr_250407.html
Through my reading of “Dangerously Loud and Incredibly Close”, I have recognized love as a common theme. I was actually quite surprised when it wasn’t a legitimate topic to blog on, but was reassured when I read through the multiple posts from students who seemed to have recognized it as well. No more than a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine and I were discussing love. We came to the conclusion that most people use love as a noun; a “thing” that can be given or taken away. As I was reading Foer’s novel, I found myself drawn to pages 170-173. The section I am referring to involves Oskar and his Mother. Oskar, very nonchalantly, brings up his funeral around bedtime one evening. His Mother of course, is a bit terrified by this idea. Oskar suddenly becomes self-conscious of his request to buried above ground and begins to joke with his mother by requesting jewels and a bidet. The two then “cracked up together, which was necessary, because she loved me [Oskar] again” (170). Oskar views love as something which must be obtained or earned. This theme continues throughout the chapter as Oskar tries to take his love away from his Mother. Oskar says “Either promise me you‘ll never fall in love again, or I’m going to stop loving you.” (171). This scene brought me back a good 10 years or so to my childhood. I remember quite vividly uttering similar phrases to my parents or friends when life just did not go my way, and I have realized that I do not do that anymore. This leads me to the next epiphany of my recent discussion about love, which is that love should be a verb instead of a noun.
Love is a tricky thing, as I am sure we all know, and I believe that true, genuine love comes with maturity. In search of back-up to our conversation, my friend and I turned to the bible. Among the several verses we found on the topic, the most prominent section was “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.“ (Matthew 22:37-39 NIV). The action of loving is a commandment, and not a request. It is a chore, and not an option. It is a demand, and not a plea. Loving is not optional. This may sound harsh or wrong, but it in perspective, it is clearly right. For example, Oskar’s Mom always loves her son. Even when her son “hurts” (172) her by stating that if he could have chosen which parent he would have wanted to die, it would have been her, she does not abolish her love for her only son. Love is supposed to be unconditional and irrevocable. Therefore, love should not be seen as Oskar sees it; love is not a gift you can present to someone and then retract. The comprehension of love comes with wisdom and maturity and Oskar is just not old enough to view love in its proper form. Love is special and “You can‘t take something like that back.” (172).
I must disagree with both Kenny and Savannah. Kenny's point that the novel is actually a criticism of war and bombings is perhaps a bit one sided. Of course, there are political views in the novel that speak out against war and bombings such as the account of Hiroshima and Dresden, and this purpose will likely speak to certain people like any other purpose. However, what must be seen is that the overall purpose of the novel is to show different relationships of humans. Each individual account Kenny brings up is not just describing a bombing but describing a relationship. Tomoyasu and her daughter have an undying relationship, that animalistic parent and child relationship. The bombings in Dresden show the same relationship (the Mother in the green dress and her child) as well as the relationship of strangers in dire situations. This is contrasted to the relationship of people on September 11, 2001, when instead of simply passing by in horror, thousands of people came together, risked their lives, defied the primal instinct of self-preservation, and aided complete strangers. In addition to the relationship shown through war, there were the relationships of Oskar and his father, and his mother, and grandmother. Oskar's mom and Ron. Grandma and Grandpa. Oskar and Mr. Black. Abby and her husband. And many more. This story is a tale about how one brave young boy can unknowingly change the lives of so many people, as well as bring many people together.
As for Savannah's comments on love, we must acknowledge that a word can be both verb and noun. Additionally, there are multiple types of love. As with many philosophical debates, one must look towards the Ancient Greeks. According to Wikipedia (Slightly more reliable now than previous years), "Ancient Greek has three distinct words for love: eros, philia, and agape....Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition. Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself...Philia , which means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity...Agape means "love" in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo, which means"I love you". In Ancient Greek it often refers to a general affection rather than the attraction suggested by "eros"; agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse." (Greek words for love) Agape love is the unconditional love that Savannah mentioned, the same love that Oskar's mom has for Oskar. But in order to understand this novel, and the complex types of relationships within it, completely, one must consider all three types of love if not more.
My Source was:
Greek words for love
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
I have really come to admire Keaton F’s point of view on the entire book. I found myself disagreeing with the comments about the book criticizing war and bombings, and on comments about love. The book is not bases on the bias opinion of political views or how the author thinks love should be seen; it is about the progressing relationships of man kind through love and war. As Keaton states, “This is contrasted to the relationship of people on September 11, 2001, when instead of simply passing by in horror, thousands of people came together, risked their lives, defied the primal instinct of self-preservation, and aided complete strangers.” Agreeably, war is something that nobody wants. In a time of need, however, man kind unites itself to protect its country: not to necessarily “preserve him self.” Kenny, on the other hand seems to be accusing mankind of selfishness. Kenny states, “As the interviewer listens to her horrific depiction of the bombing, he goes off on tangents, asking the woman to describe the “black rain” and the “mushroom cloud” (188), when the subject of her daughter is so much more important.” While the interruption of the woman’s story may very well be rude, it is certainly not an “epitome” of mankind, as Kenny says. Nor do I believe the woman being interviewed is suggesting that mankind does no good. However, I do believe that war is one on the unbearable elements of life that people, who are not suffering, cannot get enough of. It is not that people necessarily like to hear about war, but it is that they are curious about war, maybe because their lives are not exciting enough, or maybe because of reasons they don’t even understand themselves. The bad things in life often seem more interesting than the simple things that make people happy. It sparks curiosity to hear about the bad things. This curiosity exists in everyday life for people like you and I. For instance, when somebody smells something terribly disgusting, they often tell the person next to them to smell it. “Smell this, it smells horrible!” Many times the other person actually smells whatever it is that stinks. They don’t smell it because they WANT to, they smell it because they are curious about what is causing such a fuss. Similarly, people are curious about the dramatic lives of people in war and strive to learn about the horrors. While it doesn’t make sense and I certainly do not agree with it, it is frighteningly true. Therefore, I believe the interviewer went on so called “tangents” asking questions the woman was not willing to answer because he was more concerned about the heat of the moment information.
I believe that Oskar's grandmother and grandfather forged their "relationship" because the two of them were so lonely apart and they seemed to understand each other. There was a connection there, though it may not have been love, which it seems it certainly wasn't, but there had to be something more there. I don't believe that the two of them could have coincided for so long without a connection between them. While he was never truely able to get over Anna and he didn't truly love Oskar's grandma I think he was thankful for her. He was able to be with someone and open up his life with someone to a point. She too was able to become more htan herself. When she posed for him she literally bared all for him and even while she knew it wasn't herself that he saw she could accept that and just be herself.
Alexandra M W stated, "Oskar's grandma lost her virginity for all the wrong reasons. She wanted to make Thomas fall in love with her, but you should be in love before ever do something like that." I have to somewhat disagree with this statement. She may have been trying to make him fall in love with her but I don't see it that way. I believe she just needed the companionship that he offered her, and the closeness that he gave to her. Also, it is ultimately up to the person who is doing it to decide when the time is right. She may have been in love with him and that is why she was okay having sex with him. We'd have to know everything that was going on in her mind to know whether or not she was doing this for the right reasons or not.
Like Sarah J, I too have come to thrive on Keaton F’s posts. I agree with Keaton F that Foer’s point is not to criticize or sell his bias opinions about love and/or war. As I have pointed out many times in my posts Foer writes about life: love and loss. If you stripped down this book and had to come up with the two topics that support the novel it would be love and loss. However Keaton F says that the grandmother loves Thomas not because of the, “direct positive feelings for the man, but rather the absence of fear/anger he creates.” Personally, that’s not loving someone. Just because someone doesn’t create harm to you or your life doesn’t mean you automatically love them. For example, just because you have a teacher that is mediocre doesn’t mean you like them as a teacher. I still stand firm that the grandmother did not love Thomas, and if she did than it certainly wasn’t in a romantic way, more in the way you love a brother. “I don’t know if I’ve ever loved your grandfather. But I’ve loved not being alone.” (p 309). Clearly, implying that she loved the idea of him, not him alone. The absence of fear/anger from someone doesn’t cause you to love them. It causes an absence of hate perhaps, but not of love. Is it not possible to not hate someone, but not love them either? Love is not black and white, it is full of gray areas.
A girl with very, very long hair might love the idea of her long hair, but not her long hair itself. I mean, after all, it takes 30 minutes just to wash it, and 4 hours to blow it dry, then it gets messy so she has to brush it. So what does she love, the idea of long hair or the actual long hair itself?
I went to IHOP this morning. I had New York cheesecake pancakes with scrambled eggs, bacon, and extra crispy hash browns. Now, I might love the idea of eating a delicious breakfast, but do I love the food itself? I mean, after all, it’s all just an extra three pounds on me, right?
Love and the loving the idea of something are two very different things. Love isn’t a fact, or a copy-cat feeling. Scientists can write all the books they want on love, but in the end, it’s different for everyone- the way they feel it, how they express it, why they feel it.
I would have to agree with Jennifer M W when she says, "Love and the loving the idea of something are two very different things." In this novel, it is obvious that Oskar loved his dad very much. I think when you truly love someone, you can tell and feel it, rather than just having someone there to pretend to be what you want. This reminded me of the movie Freedom Writers where Scott, the teacher's husband, leaves her because she really didn't love him. His line before leaving is even "You didn't love me. You loved the idea of me." She would have liked to have a husband who supported her job and was flexible with her schedule but she didn't love him as himself. This is like Oskar's grandmother. She loved the idea of not being alone but not Thomas himself. And he left for the same reason as the character in Freedom Writers.
I love my parents and my family and even though they make me crazy, as Savannah M W mentioned with the Bible, it is almost genetically programmed in us to love them. Everyone must love something and Oskar truly loved his dad. But does he truly love his mom the way he does his dad? Or does he simply love the idea of her? I think he does love her but he also thinks he can just stop loving her like in the scene Savannah was talking about on page 171. I agree that love cannot just be taken away like an object. You may have many reasons not to love someone but don't understand why you do anyway. That is what makes love special because no one can or should fully understand it.
I believe that this novel is one of ambiguity. Foer's words support everyone's interpretations and support the multiple conclusions we have all drawn. (How else would we have gotten to said conclusions?) "Dangerously Loud and Incredibly Close" is not an allegory, therefore we all should not agree on one conclusion or even one main theme.
Also, I did not and do not agree that this novel is a satire either. I do not think that Foer is using his tale to attack, critique, or point out the injustices of society or really even comment upon war. In fact, the most prominent war I see within the novel is within Oskar himself. Oskar is constantly shifting his values, morals and desires upon his search for his beloved key's lock. For example, Oskar (much like Christopher in "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time") loathes public transportation and refuses to use it. However, when the Black residences are much to far to walk to, Oskar battles his own logic and hops on the IRT (194). Oskar in panicky throughout the entire journey to he Bronx, but he is able to focus on the main goal: finding the lock for his key (which he hopes will make him stop missing his Father). War is simply overcoming one's immediate fears, issues, and worries for a greater cause. September 11th was of course a terrible tragedy, but look at the beauty that came from it. Families learned the true value of love, strangers learned the meaning of selflessness, and America learned what it is really like to be proud and fight for justice. Sometimes it takes sorrow to learn how to smile or pain to let you know when you are truly feeling good. Everything has a positive outcome if you look hard enough, and I believe that was the epitome of Oskar's search. He simply did not want to hurt anymore. He was searching for comfort and the ability to move-on in life. I believe that he was searching for love because after all, isn't love at the base of everything?
Jennifer M was discussing common events in a day such as eating breakfast or brushing one's hair. Well, does not one eat breakfast to stay alive? And doesn't one wish to stay alive because they love living? Or do not girls brush their hair because they love themselves as well? I know this sounds silly, but it is true for us all. We perform such mundane tasks out of love for ourselves. We brush our teeth so our beloved teeth do not fall out, we go to school so that we can be successful and love the life we have made for ourselves, we thrive on building relationships with others to give and receive love, etc. Love is the root of absolutely everything- even war. We go to war to prove love for what we stand for. We even go as far as killing others who do not share our same love. Granted there are different types of love (I never said there were not) and different extents of love, but each kind, sort, flavor of love is still love. Jennifer also pointed out that two main themes of Foer's novel are love and loss. Love is even at the base of loss. For example, Oskar lost his Dad. The only reason he missed his presence was love. The same goes for ever type of loss. You could lose something simple like a pencil or even a paperclip. The only reason you even notice its absence is because you love it (even though the love is fairly miniscule and petty) as silly as that sounds. There is a reason people say that "love makes the world go 'round" and it is because it is entirely true. Love is everything and without it we have nothing. So yes, I believe that Foer's words are themed around love.
Although I do agree with Keaton’s assessment of the references of war being examples of relationships throughout the novel, they do serve a second purpose as well that connects back to the theme of loss. Horrific events and tragedies have plagued almost every country in the world. It seems that death and loss is the only thing that the world truly shares and can relate and connect to. The examples of the bombing of Dresden and also Hiroshima along with the attack on the World Trade Centers shows how three different countries have experienced similar loss at different times and shows how the people involved deal, cope, and grow from it. This novel also shows how an unfortunate few have experienced more than one and how different one tragedy is to another, but also how similar they can be. Oscar’s grandmother, for example, lived through the loss of her parents and sister in Dresden when she was only a child, but also sees the death her only son as a grown woman decades apart from each other. Thomas Schell also encountered this, but in a different way seeing as he never knew his child as a son.
Each time there is some kind of an attack on a country, they are not alone in shock, horror, disbelief, and loss. Human nature causes people to feel empathy for people who have been in a similar situation before. Even though in the book after the 9/11 attack the people in the Dresden train station kept going and “the cafes were full that afternoon, people were laughing, there were lines in front of the movie theaters, they were going to see comedies” (272), people around the world still felt the depth of loss that day. All three of these examples share the same purpose: people are still people, death is still death, and loss is still loss, no matter who experiences it or where it is. People still “[come] together, [risk] their lives, [defy] the primal instinct of self-preservation, and [aide] complete strangers” (Keaton F F).
Considering the amplitude of conversations we have had on the topic, it is probably fair to claim that relationships are one of the main themes of Foer’s novel. As readers of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, we have explored compromised relationships, such as the one between Oskar’s grandparents, natural relationships, such as the one between Oskar and his father, and temporary relationships, such as those between Oskar and the Blacks. Although Foer may have created war images for numerous reasons, through them, it seems that he has painted an image of the importance of a relationship.
Throughout history, war has been constant, unforgettable, and unfathomable. Even though each war may contain of different aspects and events that make it unique, what each war has in common is death, and more specifically, the destruction of thousands of relationships. When Tomoyasu is interviewed about the bombings in Hiroshima, she comments that after she gained consciousness, “[her] only thought was to find [her] daughter”(187). Her only thought was to find the person she loved. Kenny N stated, “By including the descriptions of the Hiroshima and Dresden Bombings and the emotional and physical responses of the civilians, Foer sets it parallel to the bombing of the World Trade Center on 9/11.” He has set them parallel by showing that even though a person’s life may only be a “plus one” to a death toll for someone across the world, to someone else, it was the death of someone they loved. Whether it was through Oskar who lost his father in 9/11, Thomas who lost Anna in Dresden, or Tomoyasu who lost her daughter in Hiroshima, Foer shows that losing someone you love has an unending impact, and even if the world is careless, it has changed a life.
I agree with brooke i f about relationships being one of the main themes in Foer's novel. I feel Foer has tried to show us that in order for a long lasting relationship to work out you have to communicate your feelings to the other party in the relationship.
Foer I believe is trying to tell us, the reader, that in order for a relationship to work you have to communicate your feelings. This is shown very well on page (216) when the grandfather wrote, "When your mother found me in the bakery on Broadway, I wanted to tell her everything, maybe if I'd been able to, we could have lived differently, maybe I'd be there with you now instead of here." This just says that if he would have communicated his feelings instead of bottling them up inside him the relationship may have worked. On pages (323-325) Oskar starts to open up to his mother and she also starts to open up. Oskar says "I wanted to tell her all of the lies I told her. And the about the phone." After Oskar and his mom open up to each other it seems like they get a lot closer than they have been throughout the whole book. Oskar even says on page (324) "It's OK if you fall in love again." which means he has started to see things through his moms point of view and agrees she deserves to have a life again but on page (325) she says, "I'll never fall in love again." which shows she might have started seeing things from Oskar's point of view and doesn't want another life. Since they see things from the others point of view I believe they can have a better relationship because they opened up about their feelings. I think in all this Foer is trying to show us we have to open up to have an effective relationship.
The way Oskar talked could be a complete replica of a story I could have written two years ago. He was naive and was not able to understand some general topics, or ideas. I was the same way. On page 171 Oskar tells off his mom. The realization of him doing this doesn't even strike him. I can still be the same way. I say things I don't mean and they're hurtful. For example, I've had the nerve to say things like to my dad like Oskar did to his mom. I am now old enough to realize the serious consequences of saying that kind of crap would get me into enormous trouble. However, jumping back to Oskar's age, I would not have the maturity level, or comprehension level to understand the incredible detrimental damage I would do to my parents feelings. Oskar has that same problem. The utter incompetence of his actions is literally incomprehensible to him.
The short sentences the author writes, but it being Oskar is just like me. I hate elongated sentences that have no meaning, and becomes of mush of inscrutable waste. The pages with one sentence on them sticks out to me. I am able to see the importance or just the plain old meaning of what is supposed to be seen. The shortness Oskar has in his voice at times, is like my writing. The explanation to situations is just like me. I was just able to focus because it all made so much sense. A young child to talk and act the way he does seems unfathomable to me. However I then just have to think back to the bright kids I know, or myself and it all makes perfect sense.
So as we have clearly established is that this novel is about relationships. I, however, would like to delve deeper and expand this idea to a new level. We could explore each important relationship, but I personally think that would be excessive. In fact, the only relationship we have not, in my opinion, discussed in enough detail is the relationship Oskar has with himself.
Oskar seems like a child who does not derive his happiness from himself. He constantly needs external assurance of his deeds and beliefs, either from his father, mother, or any of the blacks he searches out. When he first talks to Abby Black, he tries to impress her by procuring facts about elephants and ESP or that "humans are the only animal that blushes, laughs, has religion, wages war, and kisses with lips" (99). However, the most obvious sign that Oskar needs external affirmation comes on page 97, when he tells Abby that he is twelve "because [he] wanted to be old enough for her to love [him]."
Additionally, it is imperative we consider the sleeping bag metaphor and the bruises that Oskar gives himself. We all have feelings when we just want to dig a hole and hide or perhaps find the nearest door and just runaway from a situation. This is the same feeling that Oskar has, only he describes it in a way much more suitable for him. Instead of dealing with problems, he emotionally shuts down and shuts himself up in his sleeping bag. This is a protective mechanism, which relates back to the loss, which many of my fellow bloggers have mentioned. Oskar expects others to act much like him and seclude themselves from others when they are sad or feeling emotionally vulnerable, this leads toward his hatred for his mother's relationship with Ron. The bruises he gives himself, might be able to be attributed to a semi-autistic nature. A recent study has claimed that "1 in 150 kids has autism" (1 in 150 kids has autism, Report finds). Therefore, it would not be unlikely that a child would have autism or the "subtle Asperger syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder" (1 in 150 kids has autism, Report finds). The need that Oskar has to make his emotional pain and disgrace have a physical counterpart would go along with these syndromes. This is also a form of self-punishment. His parents seem to let him run wild, and cater to his every need, perhaps he needs some stability and cruelly implements it himself. This also might be a child-version of the teen issue of "cutting." A recent study has found that, "one quarter [of teens] admitted to having hurt themselves on purpose when stressed or upset" (Stress).
The last trait I would like to look at with Oskar is his imaginary fits, which are quite violent and usually occur when he is embarrassed. The most gruesome is without a doubt the scene in the play, after he is embarrassed about his grandma. The vivid detail with which Oskar describes how "blood starts to come out of (Jimmy Snyder's) nose and ears" and how he knocks "a bunch of his teeth into his mouth" (146), proves that Oskar has a psyche in turmoil. The following confusion in his fantasy explains that the is unsure with who he should be angry with, which leads only to anger at himself.
My sources were:
1 in 150 kids has autism, report finds
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070210/ai_n18719411
Stress makes 1 in 4 kids hurt themselves
http://parenting247.org/article.cfm?ContentID=679&AgeGroup=4
Now that our topic of relationships has begun to run rather dry, I would like to suggest something that I am curious about. What feelings did you experience while reading this novel? What feelings do you think Foer intended for the reader to feel? Do you think he intended specific feelings that should have been felt or rather left open ends in the way of how certain things could be taken and processed and felt? Do the feelings felt depend on the reader’s current life situation or can this book make everyone feel the same when reading certain chapters? (This isn’t a full post for me, I will continue later. Now I have to go to work, but I just wanted to leave everyone with that.)
I am glad Jennifer M brought up a new question: What feelings did you experience while reading this novel? I am glad she brought this question up because the emotions I felt were very different while reading this book. I felt different when I read chapters from Oskar's point of view than I did his grandfather's. When I read chapters from Oskar's point of view, I felt troubled, and slightly melancholy. "I'd lost count of the disappointments." (page 107) I also felt childish, but in the way Oskar is childish. "[Oskar] 'How come you didn't die in the car accident?' Mom said, 'That's enough, Oskar.'" (page 315)
When I read the chapters narrated by Oskar's grandfather, I felt depressed. The tone of this man is shy and hopeless. Foer did an amazing job conveying negative feelings through Oskar's grandfather. The reader gets to experience one of the days he was in the bombing, which saddens feelings even more. Personally, the fact that he cannot speak dampens my mood as a reader. Speaking of him not speaking, was it just me or was there no explanation of his voice loss? Maybe it was from the bombings? I thought that was interesting.
Throughout the book it seems like oskar evolves through different stages and phases, but at others he just acts like a little kid that doesnt seem to grasp the depth of the situation or cant seem to realize the fact that his father is dead. it seem like oskar was still in the stage of innocence for a long time even after showing great amounts of maturity (pg.88 when he started try cry after the very first person told him he didnt know anything about the key.)
Later on in the book he began going into episodes of outrage and dissapointment giving himself countless bruises in the over time(37,69,and countless other times) until finally his mom winds up seeing them (173) but she never said anything which i thought was odd.
Keaton F brought up the idea of autism, which is a concept I also found to be intriguing while reading the novel. Although telling a story from the view of a nine-year-old boy makes the story unique in itself, telling a story from the view of a nine-year-old boy with autism gives it quite a twist. Oskar’s childish nature is automatically an appeal to pathos, making us readers more understanding of the emotions that Oskar is feeling and the ways he acts. But since Oskar is autistic, Oskar has a different way of thinking and different personality than most nine-year-old boys would have, making Foer’s audience experience a larger range of emotions while reading.
Oskar’s autistic obsessions over concepts such as mathematics, facts, and problems, give him the ability to figure out problems, such as how often a new lock is made in New York, which is necessary for to solve the mystery of the key (41). However, even though his obsession over facts, number, and problem solving may help Oskar in some cases, more often, his autism seems to hold him back. Like we saw in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time last summer, autistic children can struggle with emotions and complex situations, and as Robert G stated, Oskar “doesn’t [always] seem to grasp the depth of the situation.” Also, Oskar’s autism makes the simplest situations seem to be a daunting task. Instead of taking the elevator at the Empire State Building, he takes the “1,860 stairs down to the lobby,” he fears the subway, and before he met Mr. Black, Oskar often walked to his destination instead of taking cabs or other forms of transportation. Even though Oskar’s autism may not be as severe as Christopher’s from the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, it still gives him a unique personality and presents a new set of challenges and ideas for him and the readers.
Jennifer M asked "What feelings did you experience while reading this novel?". This single, somewhat simple question caused me to go back through the novel and re-read my annotations. I found that throughout most of the novel I was writing words like "Beautiful" or "Cute". I believe that Foer's novel was one of poetry. As so many students have pointed out, along Oskar's journey to help himself, he helps several others along the way and what is more poetic than that? The most obvious, and what I feel to be the most beautiful example, is Mr. Black (165-168). Oskar convinces Mr. Black to turn on his hearing aides for the first time in a "long, long time" (165). Oskar- in a way- re-introduces Mr. Black to the world, Oskar gives his friend a second chance at living- and experiencing- life. After a flock of birds fly by, Foer writes "Mr. Black grabbed at his ears . . . He started crying-- not out of happiness, I could tell, but not out of sadness either . . . The sound of my [Oskar's] voice made him cry more . . . I asked him if he wanted me to make some more noise. He nodded yes, which shook more tears down his cheeks . . . I [Oskar] wanted to stay there watching him hear the world, but it was getting late . . . He said 'OK,' and the sound of his own voice made him cry the most" (168). I simply scribbled the word "Beautiful" after reading the latter quote and found myself fighting back tears. Jennifer then asks a second question: "What feelings do you think Foer intended for the reader to feel?". Based on My favorite scene (as quoted above) and even the book as a whole, I would have to say that the answer to that question is "moved". There are certain books we read in life that change our perspective on the world- or encourage a present view- and I would have to say that "Dangerously Loud and Incredible Close" is one of those works. Several passages in this novel made me re-evaluate my life. For example, on page 183 Oskar's Grandmother writes that "He promised us that everything would be OK. I was a child, but I knew that everything would not be OK. That did not make my father a liar. It made him my father". This passage allowed me to see certain promises my Dad has made in a different light and I thought about how easy it is for a child to believe a parent's words, and how hard it becomes with knowledge, experience, and loss of innocence. Foer's novel moved me to see that life changes, "stuff" happens, and it truly is "OK". Life is not supposed to stay the same, that would be boring and task-filled. Sometimes events happen to shake things up a bit like when Oskar's Dad died, or September 11th as a whole for America. Foer's novel is simply saying that it is all "OK". Life is "OK", love is "OK", and loss is "OK". I ended Foer's novel moved, and of course, "OK" with it.
Honestly, I have no idea where the notion that a child giving himself bruises is an automatic sign of autism. I believe that it is not autism that Oskar suffers from, but a severe case of depression, in which he often blames himself for mostly meaningless actions. Keaton mentions that 1 out of 150 children are autistic, but 7 out of 100 children between ages 6 and 11 are diagnosed with ADHD (ADD and ADHD Statistics). Does this mean that Oskar has ADHD, because he is sometimes distracted? Not likely. Oskar shows no signs of autism in how he interacts with people (temper tantrums, non-responsiveness, and so on), so I fail to see the relation. In fact, Oskar interacts with people extremely well, speaking with many strangers all across New York to accomplish his goal. To me, this conclusively disproves that Oskar is autistic. Of course, if I am over sighting a symptom of autism that Oskar has, please feel free to correct me.
However, that is not to say that Oskar does not have problems. Obviously a child that gives himself bruises is not perfectly normal. Oskar is suffering from the loss of his father, and, even though he shouldn't, he feels somewhat responsible for his father's death. For this reason, Oskar punishes himself physically, by bruising himself, and mentally, by not allowing himself to feel happiness. To me, these are symptoms of depression, not autism.
I forgot to cite my source.
"ADD and ADHD Statistics" - http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/addadhd/a/add_stats.htm
I am posting this in regards to Olga S W's P.S. comment. I did not think that after I read about Oskar finding his fathers name all over the Art Store that Oskar's father was alive. They had a funeral for his Father, and more than likely had to I.D. the body. Even if they did not have to I.D. his body why would he go to an Art Supply Store and write his name over and over, it is not logical.
Why would he not come home? Why would he not go home and see his Wife, and Son who desperately miss him?
To me it just does not make sense for him to go to an art store write his name and never talk to his Family again.
Jennifer M, thankyou for giving us something fresh to talk about! So going back to her questions, I would have to agree with Christen N. My emotions also changed as the writers switched from Oskar to his grandfather to his grandmother. It's funny how connected I feel to the characters in this book. When I read the chapters that Oskar is narrating, I actually understand his inventions, ideas and the way he is feeling. While some people may find his suggestions absurd, I know why he thinks the way he does. As I read his grandfather's journal entries, I am overcome by sorrow and pity. I feel horrible for him. He was separated by the one person in the world he truly loved. The only way he could feel connected to her once more was by marrying her sister. He was so desperate to somehow make her part of him again that he settled for the next best thing. His style of writing is so beautiful and intriguing. On page 33 he writes, " I thought about my small victories and everything I'd seen destroyed...I'd lost the only person I could have spent my only life with...I'd experienced joy, but not nearly enough, could there be enough?" He seems so helpless, alone and completely lost. He can't speak because every word he spoke reminded him of Anna. I can't imagine losing the ability to speak due to the grief they feel. As for the grandmother's entries to Oskar, I feel sympathetic towards her. She's fallen in love with her sister's lover, who eventually leaves her. She spent her entire marraige feeling like she wasn't good enough for him, that she couldn't make him forget about her sister. She tries to be there for him, though she had lost everything as well. Her husband never shows compassion towards her and she is left to deal with her pain by herself.
Going on to answer Jennifer's next question, "What feelings do you think Foer intended for the reader to feel?" I believe Foer meant for the reader to feel all of these emotions I just shared. I think he wanted us to connect to the reader and feel what they felt, whether it be confusion, depression, hopelessness, etc. I think he left 'open ends' as Jennifer says, to how we processed his reading and felt about it. Many of us on this blog have come up with different meanings to the pictures he included as well as what the title means. I don't believe there are any wrong answers.
As to her next question, I don't think the reader's feelings depend on their current life situation, although if one's situation is similar to Oskar's they may feel more connected to the book. If you have lost a loved one you may completely understand how Oskar is feeling, while the rest of us can only imagine the pain he must feel. I also don't think this book can make everyone feel the same, as Jennifer suggests. As I previously mentioned, this book can be interpreted in many different ways and it depends on our own perception of it.
Can anyone else answer some of these questions? I think they'd create great new discussions!
What Keaton F. has confused most about my post on the anti-war content in this novel is the idea that I found it to be “the overall purpose” (7/17), which really isn’t true. I couldn’t agree more that this novel is about relationships and the human condition and I didn’t have to be convinced. As Keaton mentioned, “there are political views in the novel that speak out against war and bombings” (7/17). The fact that there seems to be no pro-war content suggests that Foer may have expressed an opinion on the subject. That being said, I would agree with Carly F. that the anti-war content is there for the purpose of showing that “different countries have experienced similar loss.” Loss unites people in the sense that people come together in the mourning of a loved one. Even more so, loss unites all of mankind in the human condition. Foer’s purpose is to show that no matter what part of the world you live in, loss is devastating. And, mourning and moving on are difficult tasks—perhaps even a lesson in life. As different as Dresden and Hiroshima and the United States are, there is unity and fellowship in the experience of loss.
Although there are many people who educate themselves on what is going on around the world, many people are apathetic to anything outside of their own spectrum, to anything outside of their own life. There are people who see bombing the “enemy” as a victory. Perhaps from a nationalist standpoint it is, but for mankind it is definitely not. “Enemy” casualties are living, breathing people, with families and friends and interests. Foer brings these people to life for the reader. The reader relates to the characters’ loss and is influenced to think outside of his or her own spectrum—be that a country, a race, a family, or the person themselves. Tomoyasu claimed “if everyone could see what [she] saw, we would never have war anymore” (189). As unrealistic as this may be, it is a worthwhile fight. This is not really the central theme to the novel, but it is a theme none the less.
I would like to first agree with Brooke L’s last post comparing Oskar with Christopher from “Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time”. Both of these characters face difficulties in their everyday life and ultimately both books are about a journey to solve a seemingly insignificant mystery which leads them to step outside of their normal day to day routine. However, I also agree with Kyle S in the sense that Oskar doesn’t openly say that he has autism in the novel, but I do think his certain tendencies and phobias show that he may have a mild case of some sort of disorder, which very well could be depression. He obviously doesn’t want to be happy or get over the loss of his father, but what he doesn’t realize is that the search for the key is his happiness. He says after his session with his therapist, “it was almost Saturday, which meant I was that much closer to the lock, which was happiness” (207). He may be punishing himself because he feels guilty as Kyle mentioned, because he is letting his father down. Just like when they did the scavenger hunt in Central Park and Oskar wanted to give up because he was stumped, his father didn’t let him (8-10). Instead he gave him more clues. When Oskar gets further away from the lock he feels he is failing at the search and therefore hurts himself. He was never able to finish the scavenger hunt with the metal objects, so he has made it his mission to finish this search, for his father.
I just saw Rachel S P response to my (rhetorical) question and I want to answer back. First of all, even though they had a funeral for the body, the casket was empty; we know that for sure. Secondly, if I remember correctly, Christopher’s father told him that his mother also had a funeral that Christopher couldn’t attend (or was it cremation? Either way, just like Oskar, Christopher never saw the body.) I think it also says somewhere in the book that there were so many unidentified bodies that they never really found Thomas Schell’s one. He is presumed dead.
Rachel asks, “Why would he not come home? Why would he not go home and see his Wife, and Son who desperately miss him?” and I have to point out that the reader doesn’t know what the parent’s relationship was like. May be he was cheating, may be she was. We see Oscar’s mother being sad and she says that she misses him, but she doesn’t actually say that he is dead. She could still miss him if he abandoned her.
In the end, I know it’s pretty much impossible that Oscar’s dad is still alive, but at the time I read it it seemed very likely.
Besides, I just like playing Devil’s advocate.
I agree with Kyle S F's opinion of Oskar not being autistic, but just depressed. At first, I noticed similarities between the way Oskar and Christopher spoke and thought in the books, which did, for a while make me wonder if Oskar has autism as well. An example of this is how Christopher would only eat certain colored foods, and Oskar would only wear white clothing; they both demonstrated an unusual demand for those colors that it seems like a normal person wouldn't. Also, they are both unusually smart; Chris has his amazing math talent and Oskar is scholastically smart overall. However, as the book progressed I could see that Oskar became less and less like Chris. First and foremost, Oskar says "My other rules were that I wouldn't be sexist again, or racist... or discriminatory to handicapped people or mental retards..." (87) which infers that he has no disabilities himself, obviously. Besides that obvious statement, it is easy to see that Oskar is in no way autistic. The University of Delware's website O.A.S.I.S (Online Asperger Syndrome Information and Support) claims that an autistic person will "show marked deficiencies in social skills... They often have obsessive routines and may be preoccupied with a particular subject of interest. They have a great deal of difficulty reading nonverbal cues (body language) and very often the individual with AS has difficulty determining proper body space." (http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html) Oskar does not demonstrate any of these behaviors. For example, Oskar is not "obsessed" with any one subject, he has many interest that he lists on his business card, he claims to be an: "inventor, jewelry designer, jewelry fabricator, amateur entomologist, francophile, vegan, origamist, pacifist, percussionist, amateur astronomer, computer consultant, amateur archeologist, collector of: rare coins... and other things" (99) From that, it is clear he has many interests, like any normal kid. Secondly, he is very observant and quite good at reading body language, such as when he is with Abby Black. He says, "You're sad. Why?" (94) Although Abby did not mention being unhappy, Oskar was able to tell through her facial expressions and body language, something which I don't believe he could have done if he was autistic.
Yeah I really dont feel like getting into an argument about autism so im just going to start a new subject. So in my personal opinion it would suck to think like oskar, the grandmother, or the grandfather. I know this is an illligetimate topic but i mean you would never be able to concentrate on anything.
For instance Oskar couldn't even fall asleep for hours throughout the entire book because his mind kept wandering and "inventing"(pgs.38,52,70-74,104,106,168, and many many more) or the way the grandfather was thinking of where everyone else that he couldnt see was going when he went to see Anna.(pg.114) or even the grandmoher thinking every little detail in her life was signifigant in some way but she claims that she had forgotten everything important like the view from someone elses window which to me is very unimnportant. Just think about it, if you thought like that you would be eating breakfast and wonder what is everyone else eating for breakfast? does it taste good to them? are they getting enough fiber? or if you were married and say your spouse puts on shirt you would wonder if that meant or symbolized something, is he/she trying to cover up their feelings from me? or something
I just think it would be a terrible way to live.
Anna M claims that Oskar does not have Asperger Syndrome. Her research states that a person with autism will “show marked deficiencies in social skills... They often have obsessive routines and may be preoccupied with a particular subject of interest. They have a great deal of difficulty reading nonverbal cues (body language) and very often the individual with AS has difficulty determining proper body space”. This is great research, but I interpreted it in a different way.
Oskar does show “deficiencies in social skills” because he has trouble communicating with the people in his life. He even asks Abby Black if he can kiss her, which is not something that most people would do (99). This may not reflect AS and only be because he is just a child, but it shows that he does not have the best social skills. He also has trouble communicating with his mother because he knows she doesn’t understand him. It seems to me that he does not connect very well with the people around him.
Anna then goes on to say that “Oskar is not ‘obsessed’ with any one subject”. He is, however, obsessed with inventing. He invents the most when he can’t sleep, and most of his inventions have to do with his father’s death. Oskar’s business card mentions the many things that interest him, but he spends the most time inventing.
As for “difficulty reading nonverbal cues”, I think Oskar misinterprets body language many times throughout the book. As Anna says, he is able to tell that Abby is unhappy, but that is because she was crying (96). He cannot tell when the body language is more subtle. His mother is a good example of this, because he thinks that she is too happy after her husband died. He sees her with Ron and he thinks that she is not suffering at all, when she is actually in a group of people who lost someone. He misinterprets their relationship, and he does not understand until Ron tells him about the group. He cannot see that they are both suffering.
All of these reasons may not be enough to diagnose Oskar with Asperger Syndrome, but he defiantly shows some of the characteristics.
Sorry to Robert G for continuing the conversation on autism. I didn't see your comment until after I wrote this.
In response to Robert G’s last comment, I do agree that the way Oskar, his Grandmother, and Grandfather live would not be the best way to live, but each of them have come to terms with their lifestyles. Oskar’s grandparents have lived decades like this and both of them have accepted the fact that Thomas loved Anna and that Oskar’s Grandmother was always missing something in her life. The fact that all three of them face some kind of suffering in their lives unites them. They all share a burden, but that is the life they have known and have had to make the best they can of it.
I also think it is time for a new topic so I would like to discuss the significance of names throughout the novel. I found it very interesting that not once in the novel did the readers find out the names of Oskar’s mother and Grandmother. It is ironic how Oskar’s Grandma is the character in the story, yet she is never really given an identity while her late sister is. Anna was a major part of the story and she was never living. It is almost as if Oskar’s Grandma gave up her identity entirely when Anna died. She was never good enough for Thomas, so her name was never important. Another interesting point is the passing down of the same name. Peter Black gives the same name to his son as well as Thomas Schell to his son, even though Oskar does not discover that until later on. After talking to Peter he states, “It made me wonder for the first time why I wasn’t named after dad, although I didn’t wonder about the renter’s name being Thomas” (287). Both Oskar’s Grandfather and father left their families, but in different ways. Oskar may be the end of the trend. He is the end of the name Thomas and will not take over the family business. He is the one to begin a new generation.
As Carly F brought up the significance of names, I thought deeper about the authors reasons as to why us, as readers, never learned the names of Oskar's grandmother. So when I read that Carly believed we never learned the grandmothers name because she was not important to Thomas, I agreed. When Thomas was helping her write her life story, she would be in the room all day just typing. And then, if I recall, when Thomas looked at the book it was all blank pages. Because that is what she felt her life was-empty.
It seems as though Anna was always the better sibling. The one who did everything perfect, had the perfect life, perfect boyfriend etc. I think Oskar's grandmother idolized her so much, and tried to be so much like her, that when Anna died she lost herself. Perhaps not all of herself, but a good portion. it seemed kind of like she was just drifting along, waiting to find the person she was before Anna died.
The idea of pessimism and optimisim is brought up numerous times through out the pages of this book. In his last few moments with his son, Oskar's father asks him, "Are you an optimist or a pessimist?" and Oskar after some thought, Oskar replies with, "I am an optimist" (221). The beliefs between Oskar and his mother clash when they discuss Thomas' death. Oskar's mother says, "I'm trying to find ways to be happy. Laughing makes me happy," but Oskar shoots back, "I'm not trying to find ways to be happy, and I won't" (171). This shows the reader that Oskar's mother is an optimist, where as Oskar himself is a pessimist. However, when Oskar talks about an astronaut he says, "...Because gravity isn't only what makes us fall, it's what makes our muscles strong" (243). He is contradicting himself because this statement shows that he has an optimistic side as well.
One thing that I notice every time that I thumb through the pages of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is the final picture scene in the back of the book. When I flip the pages from left to right (which is how you read the book), the falling body seems to raise upwards, instead of fall to the ground. It is not until I flip the pages backwards from right to left until the body appears to fall to the ground. To me, this is the authors way of showing the reader that the body, whom I assume is Oskar's father, is raising to Heaven, instead of falling to the cold ground.
In response to Sarah F, if that case being; The body falling upwards from the building is Oskar's father, what is the importance to letting us know he is in heaven. I would imagine one who believes in the a religion with Heaven and Hell, you would automatically assume Heaven is where your loved one is going. It's almost a given in your head. You hope for the best to those who have passed, most people anyways. So as I was saying, why would Foer want the body to be rising up. Are there any other explanations?
If you flip the book upside down, then you start with the picture and it being the opposite direction so he would then not be falling up.
A reverse of time maybe. This meaning maybe that is what Oskar wishes could happen. His father falling up, and coming home with no bruises or scrapes.
To continue with Lisa F P and Sarah F P's conversation about the person falling from the buliding, the wrong way, I think another reason it's backwards is Oskars ability to invent things that would've saved his father. Just like the googloplex telephones, boidegradable cars, and safety nets everywhere(316), maybe Oskar put the pictures in backwards to symbolize a way to save him. Like a string is attached to him so he can be pulled back up. I'm actually more inclined to think that than the religious factor, simply because Oskar is so confused about the concept of god in this book, yet is very adament on the fact that he is an inventor and can't turn his brain off.
Hi there, I haven’t visited the blog in a couple of days, so my responses may go a little while back to some interesting comments.
So, I’ll start with the oldest one.
Keaton says, “there are political views in the novel that speak out against war and bombings” (7/17) which is true, though the political views are revealed through the characters’ actions—so you could argue that they are just the characters’ individual opinions, rather than the overall theme of the book. I am not going to argue though, because I do agree with Keaton.
Carly F. said that the anti-war content is there for the purpose of showing that “different countries have experienced similar loss.” (Carly F and Keaton) That’s definitely one of the reasons, but what I want to point out is the interesting relationship between the three tragedies in this book—9/11, Hiroshima and Dresden. There is plenty of armed conflict in the world to choose from, so I think it’s significant that Hiroshima and Dresden were chosen to stand along the 9/11. (JSF could’ve chosen two other terrorist acts)
9/11 was an act against United States, with U.S. casualties, however the other two were both attacked by U.S. Dresden (the place the grandparents are form) is a city in Germany that from February 13 to February 15 1945 was bombed by British Royal air Force and United States Army Air Force. Hiroshima (along with Nagasaki) were the targets for the Atom Bomb. Why did JSF pick these events? Was it to show that violence only creates more violence, starting a vicious cycle? Was it a reminder that what goes around comes around? Or to hint Americans that they aren’t the only ones suffering? You decide. (I actually think it’s all three)
Source: Wikipedia (Yeah, yeah, I know) Bombing of Dresden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_dresden
Also, as to the reasons why Grandma’s name is never known:
It’s not just her; Thomas never talks about his family, friends or siblings that he may have lost in the war; it’s always about Anna. I don’t think it’s because he is selfish or doesn’t care about anyone besides her. I think the reason is because, in the end, she grew in his mind from his first love/pregnant girlfriend into a symbol of everything and everyone he has lost; into a symbol of suffering itself. In his mind, she stands for his past life and everyone/thing in it.
okay, i was just wondering if anyone else had gotten curious and looked up " Extremly Loud nad Incredibly Close" on youtube. I found some great stuff. "It was the worst day" Is alway's mentioned in most of them. Mr. Webb, we should look at some of these when school starts.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NpbSh4s5dpI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=demcoHO_pNA
Robert G says that it would, “suck to think like Oskar, the grandmother, or the grandfather” in the novel. I have many different thoughts on this statement. First, I do agree with this. All of these characters have one thing in common, depression. However all of these characters show different cases and spectrums of this disorder. Clearly Thomas Schell exhibits the most severe depression, without a doubt. I’m not sure, though how Oskar and his grandmother stack up. In my mind the grandmother should be more depressed because she’s lost more than Oskar. However, while she exhibits symptoms of depression (I will get to these symptoms in a second), it seems as though she tries to hold them back to be strong for Oskar. The grandmother doesn’t really have any purpose after a while. Once her husband leaves her and her son dies, all she has is Oskar, so she has less to live for. Oskar, on the other hand, has the search for the key, making his Mom happy, entomology, making jewelry and his many other raisons d’être (p. 1,7).
Oskar’s depression symptoms are self-loathing, concentration problems, irritability, insomnia, loss of interest in daily activities, feelings of helplessness or hopelessness. (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/depression_signs_types_diagnosis_treatment.htm) The grandmother doesn’t exhibit any of these specific symptoms but it is implied that she is not happy because she allows herself to get pregnant (p 177), to fill the empty space in her heart. The grandfather’s main symptom is his inability/refusal to speak after the loss of the love of his life.
It would suck to think and live like these characters who are always having to chase whatever they are inclined to think is missing. However, I believe there are more readers who can relate to what these characters feel than we think. Teenagers today have problematic lives that lead to about 20 percent of teens that will experience teen depression before they reach adulthood (http://www.teendepression.org/articles5.html). So, perhaps the 20 percent of us who will statistically experience teen depression before we reach adulthood know that “it sucks to live like Oskar or his grandparents”.
My sources:
Belmonte, Joelle
Helpguide.org
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/depression_signs_types_diagnosis_treatment.htm
Copyright© 2001-2008
Teen Depression
http://www.teendepression.org/articles5.html
Copyright© 2005
When reading the conversation Lisa F and Sarah F were having, I thought of my own reason for why, at the end of the book, it shows the person "falling" back up to the top of the building. Although Sarah and Lisa make good points, I think it has something to do with Oskar's way of thinking changing from the beginning to the end of the book. At the beginning Oskar was very black and white about it all. He was afraid of the subway, Muslim people and tall buildings. By the end of the book, he had ridden the subway, been to the top of the Empire State Building and come to realize his fear of all Muslims was uncalled for. Oskar grew so much by the end of the book, I think the jumping person "jumping" back onto the roof was a symbol for his growth as a person. g
I am responding to Olga S W's comment about my last comment.
It is true that the casket was empty. I'm not denying the fact that they never received his body. There was no way to I.D. every single person that was at the Twin Towers that day. But why would Oskar's Father abandon him and his mom? That does not make any sense to me. From the way Oskar narrated his parents relationship they sounded happy. I also don't think that either of them were cheating. They seemed very happy.
Going back to her comment " She never says he is dead" Why does she have to say " He is dead" Just because she can’t say “he’s dead” Does not mean it is not true. It is real whether she says that or not. She is probably in denial that her Husband is dead, and does not want to admit it.
I strongly agree with Gabriella M’s comment about the picture at the end of the book symbolizing his growth throughout the novel. I also agree with Sarah F and Lisa F when they said that the reason his father’s body was falling backwards was symbolizing the father’s rise into heaven. Oskar does certainly grow out of his fears in this book, but it makes one wonder if he was actually done grieving his father’s death, which I believe the very last few pages sum up perfectly. I know at the very end of the book I wasn’t completely satisfied with the ending of the novel, but after giving it some thought I noticed that Oskar’s pictures at the end gave the story the perfect ending. I think Foer chose to end the book this way to solve the conflict Oskar was dealing with. He started off this “mission” to solve the mystery of the key in his dad’s closet, but at the end, it turned out there was nothing special about it at all (which I thought was a little pointless). The couple last few pages of the book symbolize Oskar somewhat forgiving everyone, as well as himself, for his father’s death. I believe it shows the last step of his grieving process, and it shows he is done with investigating the loss of his dad, as he excepts he is truly gone.
Kristin T makes many good points against my claim that Oskar does not have Asperger's Syndrome, but I would still like to chalk all her examples up to the fact that Oskar is only 9 years old, and his social skills are not as developed as an adult's, as she mentioned herself. She says "He also has trouble communicating with his mother because he knows she doesn’t understand him. It seems to me that he does not connect very well with the people around him." I disagree that the fact the he cannot fully communicate with his mother is a "social deficiency". I say this because, as a teenager, I can think of several examples where myself or one of my piers has kept information from our parents, just as Oskar did about his quest, because we felt as though our parents wouldn't understand our motives. I'm sure anyone reading this knows exactly what I'm talking about. Isn't the image of a crying teen screaming "You don't UNDERSTAND!" at their mom and then slamming the door a popular TV cliche? I think it just goes to show that just because Oskar doesn't seem to be on the same level as his mother does not give him "social deficiencies". It seems to me that Oskar is just a normal child; the only difference between him and anyone else is that he has gone through a horrible tragedy, which of course will have negative effects on him, but I wouldn't call any of his behaviors symptoms of Asperger's.
However, I do understand her point on obsession, which I overlooked. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the words "obsession" as "Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety." It seems as though Oskar's inventing is a way of getting rid of anxiety, especially over his father's death, since he wants to know how it happened. Because Kristin T says herself that "Most of his inventions have to do with his father’s death" I believe that his obsession with inventing is not a symptom of Asperger's, but simply a way for him to deal with the loss of his father.
As for what she said about Oskar not being able to read body language and nonverbal cues, such as with her mother and Ron, she says, "He thinks that she is not suffering at all", but I think that is a result of childlike selfishness and how he is reacting to his mother healing while he is still crushed by his father's death, and since Oskar was more or less spying on them while they were together, I don't think there would be any nonverbal cues for him to read the he could understand about their relationship anyway. Its clear to see that when you read the conversation between him and his mother: " 'It's just that you act like you don't miss him... I hear you laughing.... with Ron'... 'You think that because I laugh every now and then I don't miss Dad?.. I'm trying to find ways to be happy. Laughing makes me happy.' I said, 'I'm not trying to find ways to be happy, and I won't.' 'Well, you should.. because dad would want you to be happy.' 'Dad would want me to remember him... Why are you in love with Ron?'... Oskar, did it ever occur to you that things may be more complicated than they seem?'... 'The promise me you won't ever fall in lveo again.' " (170-171) Even when Oskar is told outright about his mother and Ron's relationship, he refuses to believe it, as a way to cope with his loss. He won't move on from his dad's death, and he is mad at his mom for doing so. Overall, I think that Oskar's actions, although similar to Aspergaer's, can be explained simply due to his naivety as a child, as well as his reactions to and attempts to cope with his dad's death.
I'm not sure exactly which topic my idea should go under, but anyways.
I was watching a TV show the other day and they were interviewing a man and his daughter. The man was carrying a note pad and didn't say much more than yes, no and a few different words. When it came turn for his questions he wrote on his notepad and let his daughter read it out loud. At one point she stopped and said that her dad said he was sorry for not speaking for himself that he had Aphasia, which is a disease that effects the ability to comunicate. As I watched I found his symptoms strangely similar to Oscar's grandfather. I looked up Aphasia and this is what I found http://www.medicinenet.com/aphasia/article.htm
I loved how Jonathan Safran Foer added this fascinating disability into his book. This disability was casually put into the book without explanationas to how it happened or if it was just in his mind or if it was actually a defect from something tramatic. I find Jonathan Foer a creative genius because he is capable of blending so many realistic ideas together to make you wonder.
Along with Anna P, I also believe that Oskar's actions are not due to Aspergers Syndrome. Although Christopher from The Curious Incident of the dog in the Night-time and Oskar show some similarities, I think Oskar's naive young age match Christopher's older age with autism. Christopher's actions and obsessions are much more extensive, and along with Anna, I believe that Oskar's actions are simply due to his age and to overcome the shock and sadness of his dad's death.
Going back to Carly F and Gabriella's questioning of why we never learn Oskar's grandmother's name, they said that it is because "she was not important to Thomas". I have to disagree. I think that he still cared about her and was, if only minor, important to him. Although he obviously cared more about Anna, he still lived with Oskar's grandmother for a long time. Even though Oskar's grandmother was not as important to Thomas as Anna, she is still very important to Oskar. It seems he would have mentioned her name sometime in the parts of the book that he narrates. This could be though because she is known only as "Grandma" to him.
This also reminded me of the book Of Mice and Men, when we never learn the name of Curley's wife. Although we only know her as Curley's wife she ends up controlling most of the events in the book whether she knows it or not. Which brings me back to Oskar's grandmother, without her, (obviously) there would not even be a Oskar.
I definently agree with Garrett E when he talks about how Oskar's Dad's quests really have no meaning. I think that his dad only sent him on the searches to let him open up and see the world.I think that the blue vase was the biggest journey that Oskar had to endure. It is a way for Oskar to get himself out of his depression phase about his dad and start a new life. This journey has him meeting new people, getting attention that he has been craving, and having a purpose in life. He is able to spend eight months searching for a piece of his dad who he misses so much. The entire time he is searching he feels close to his dad. I truly think that he, deep down inside doesn't want to find out what the key belongs to, just to have a part of his dad that he can hold on to.
Anna M makes some very good arguments that Oskar does not have Asperger's Syndrome. Her last post made me think even more on the subject, but I never actually claimed that Oskar has AS, only that it’s possible. Anna and I interpreted the signs in different ways, but I don’t think there is a definite answer to whether Oskar has Asperger's or not. He certainly has some of the characteristics but as Anna says, he “is only 9 years old”. I understand that the characteristics he shows may be because of his age, but it is still possible that he is autistic.
Anna brings up the point that most teenagers withhold information from their parents because they don’t think they will understand. This is a very good point. Many of us don’t tell our parents everything because we know (or think) that they were never in our shoes. I am sure that all of us, as teenagers, have done this, but I would like to point out the fact that Oskar is only a child. He may be extremely mature for his age, but he is only nine. I don’t know too many nine-year-olds that would slam the door in their mothers face and claim that no one understands them. The innocence that most children have, cause them to think that their parents know everything, and not many nine-year-olds think that they are not understood. Their simple outlook on life makes them think that everyone understands them. Oskar’s lack of communication with his mother may not be seen as a “social deficiency”, but we can not look at him as if he is teenager. We must remember that no matter how mature he seems to be, he is only a child and his trouble communicating could be a symptom of Asperger's.
Anna then goes on to talk about Oskar’s obsession with inventing. She is right in saying that his obsession may be “simply a way for him to deal with the loss of his father”. I’m sure that everyone has a different way of coping with a death of a loved one, but I found it interesting that he is obsessed with the way he copes with the death. Again this may be because he is a child and he does not know the best way of dealing with his fathers death, but it also may be a sign of AS.
Anna brings up the other side of the argument that Oskar’s difficulty in reading body language may be “a result of childlike selfishness and how he is reacting to his mother healing while he is still crushed by his father's death”. Again this may be true, but I never said that he cannot read body language, just that he seems to misinterpret it a lot. He understands the main body language—crying, laughing, and the shrugging of shoulders. For example, he knows Abby Black is sad because she is crying (94), and he knows his mother is moving on because she is laughing (170-171). He just seems to have trouble when it is more subtle. Even if this is true, there are two sides to the argument. Oskar’s misinterpretation of body language could stem from his “childlike selfishness”, or it could be a symptom of autism.
All of Anna’s arguments are very good and they could all be true. I am just saying that it is possible that autism is behind Oskar’s behavior. I am in no way diagnosing Oskar with Asperger's Syndrome, I merely meant to point out that we have no way of knowing, and we all interpret his behavior differently.
When i first got the book, the first thing i was drawn to was the cover. I think that It has a strong connection to Oskar's grandfather because when he ran out of paper he would use his skin. I wondered why fit all of the words on just the hand and not the full cover.
I would like to hear your thoughts about the cover picture.
Throughout the book there is images of a door knob and a lock. At first, it was without a key, then a key appears, then a different door, etc. At first I thought this had to do with oscar finding the key to communication. Now, I can't find a pattern. does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Vinny S. brought up an interesting point about the cover of the novel. The bright red color of the hand brings attention to it and that contrasts with the lighter background of the rest of the cover. It is interesting how all of the words fit into the hand and just as Vinny believes, I too feel that the hand represents the grandfather and the troubles that he faces while trying to communicate. The only thing that I do not understand about the hand on the cover is that the main story is about Oskar and so why put the hand of Thomas on the front?
Now to answer Kelci’s question about the doors and the locks. In the book it says that Oskar’s grandfather took many pictures of the doors within his home. I believe that these pictures are placed in the novel in order to show one way that Oskar’s grandfather connected with his home since he did not have a great relationship with his wife. He needed to feel connected in his house, so he took pictures of it. Now as to why some have keys and some do not, I don’t know. There seems to be no pattern and therefore maybe they are placed in the book randomly.
On the last written page of the book, 326, the words “would have” appear 19 times. Oskar talks about all the things that would have gone differently, ending with the line, “We would have been safe.” Because using “would have’s” and “if only’s” implies that one isn’t okay with something that happened and they would have changed it, and they think of what they could have done; I wonder if Oskar has come to terms with his father’s death. Though he has come a long way and grown up through out the novel, we aren’t left with answers to some of our lingering questions: What happened to Mr. Black? Is Oskar finally over the death of his Dad? Will Thomas Schell leave Oskar’s grandmother again?
The way Foer ends this novel, unfortunately, is realistically. It is human nature to ask “what if” and “would have”, and this is what Oskar does closing the story. I certainly wouldn’t describe the end as a cliff-hanger, but we are left with questions, as I pointed out earlier. The question that sticks out to me the most is whether or not Oskar is over the death of his father. I’m inclined to think that he isn’t quite yet over it, only because, still, on the last written page of the book he says, “We would have been safe.” He doesn’t follow this statement with, “But we weren’t safe, and that’s the way it is” or “But those are all just would have’s and I have to start dealing with the face that moving on is part of life.” I would be very curious to find out what you all think?
I disagree with what Greg M said about there being no correlation between the pictures of the doors/ locks and keys in the book. If we go back, we remember the part when the grandfather is talking about the something and nothing places. "...The side of the door that faced the guest room was nothing, the side that faced the hallway was something, the knob that connected thgem was neither something nor nothing." (110).
For this reason, I feel that the pictures of the locks and knobs are the separation between the 'something' and 'nothing' parts of the book. Not to say that parts are unimportant or nonexistant, just that they are 'nothing'. The interesting thing I noticed though is the only right-side or back side to a doorknob I found was on page 134. This one would be on the side of the nothing door, but i'm not sure exactly why this is the only one. I'm sure that the reader didn't just throw it in there for show at least.
Vinny said he believes the cover of the book is like Oskar's grandfather writing on his skin and I think that is what it is too. As to why just put the writing on the hand and not the full cover, what would be interesting about that? I think Foer uses it to draw attention to readers and connect to the story at the same time.
Greg M wonders: if the main story is about Oskar, why put the hand of Thomas on the front? Even though Oskar is the only narrator that is speaking presently, a portion of the book is Thomas writing letters to Oskar's dad, Thomas. The letters are in the past but they still are in the book and connect to both stories (Thomas Sr.'s life and Oskar's) in some way or another.
As for the doorknobs and keys, I think it is another way of connecting the two stories in the book. As Greg said Thomas Sr. toke pictures of the doorknobs in his house. Oskar is looking for a key that could very well open a door. Also there are doorknobs and locks that have a key and some that do not. As there is not a real pattern, I think they might represent Oskar's emotions at that time. If he has "heavy boots" the lock without a key can represent not being any closer to solving the riddle. If Oskar's happy the lock might have a key and it can mean hope and maybe being closer to finding what the key belongs to.
Ok since Jennifer M just kicked the snot out of my last topic haha im just goning to join in on Kelci B and Greg M's discussion about the door knobs. Throughout the book in both the grandmother and grandfathers letters they talk about making nothing spaces(pgs.110, 175), they even made entire rooms nothing spaces, and then the gandfather began to wonder what the spaces between the rooms were, something or nothing?(110) so I think that the pictures of the door knobs that are in the grandfathers letters means that the writing in between the pictures either isnt supposed to mean anything at all, mean something important, or mean something entirly different.
since those pictures appear quite frequently that probably means the pages between them tell you something important.
opps sorry Jacelyn S i didnt read yours until after i published mine
So yea everyone that reads mine should read Jacelyn S's instead she got the point across better.
I would like to add to Olga’s reasons that the attacks on Dresden, Hiroshima, and the Twin Towers are used in the novel. I would have to say that Jonathan Safran Foer also picked the events to show that violence is violence and the attacks are timeless. In all three of the events, the country being attacked didn’t have a fighting chance. They are all in the story with different people telling about them. All three of these people were affected personally and I think it is used to compare and contrast how three different people felt during an attack on not only their country, but them personally.
Also, this book reminded me a lot of Cannery Row by John Steinbeck. Balance seems to be a prominent theme in both of these novels. In Cannery Row, everything is counterbalanced by something else. Although I think the idea of balance is similar in both books, it seems to be different as well. In Cannery Row, there is no confusion of balance. If there is night, there is day to balance it; balance is defined. In Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, balance is not defined. Oskar’s grandma asks, “What are we? Something or Nothing?” (178). There is some sort of balance between something and nothing, but it is not clear cut. A good example is the symbol Lao Tze (a “ying-yang”), which is used in Cannery Row. The symbol has a defined line between the black and white. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close never references this sign, or anything that would show a distinct line of balance. Did anyone else notice this?
I agree with Courtney's idea of balance in the book. i have never read Cannery Row but the balance in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a little off. The connection between things isn't clear. Like there is more nothing than something. I think that might be a metaphor for their love though. There is more not loving than love for eachother. Another metaphor I found was when Grandma sets all the animals free when Grandpa doesn't come home and she says the animals never come back. This reminded me of the quote "If you love someone, set them free." So maybe the book is balanced with metaphors. I'm sure it will all come together in the end though.
I'm really wondering what the letters have to do with Oskar. I think maybe it's like what Courtney and Olga were saying about examples of tragedy in the book. The letters describe the grandparents' lost love just like Oskar lost his dad who is someone he loved. I dont know.
Courtney W brings up a good point when she says,"Balance seems to be a prominent theme and everything is counterbalanced by something else." An example of this is the use of humor and sadness throughout the book. Even though the plot of the story is meant to be sad, Foer uses humor to balance this sad story out. Oskar says, "Nothing is beautiful and true"{46}. To Oskar nothing is beautiful and true because both are words describe something positive- there is no balance. It has to be good and bad. Oskar also says,"That wasn't a lie, exactly, although it wasn't exactley the truth, either"(43). Even truth has to be balanced with lies. I think that Oskar's grandfather's hands can symbolize this balance since one of his hands says yes and the other says no. Yes and no balance each other out as well.
Courtney brought up a very interesting reflection about balance and how it is used throughout “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” as well as her connection to “Cannery Row.” Although I understand where she is coming from when she says, “In [EL&IC], balance is not defined,” I have to disagree. I believe Foer creates a very distinctive counterbalance between many different factors throughout his novel just as in Cannery Row.
The first—the hands tattooed with YES and NO. These hands belong to the grandfather whom which uses them to clarify answers without having to write them on paper. One will notice how Foer didn’t create a third hand with MAYBE, POSSIBLY, or PERHAPS written upon it. He responds with one or the other. Never both. There is a well-defined line between these two hands. The hand with YES counterbalances the hand with NO. The grandfather states, “I went to a tattoo parlor and had YES written onto the palm of my left hand, and NO onto my right palm, what can I say, it hasn’t made life wonderful, it’s made life possible…I signify “book” by peeling open my clapped hands, every book, for me, is the balance of YES and NO” (17).
The second—the balance of secrets and truth. When Oskar begins his journey on finding the lock to his key, he says, “Another thing I decided was that I would be as secretive about my missions as I could at home, and as honest about it as I could outside home, because that’s what was necessary” (87). Oskar is not the type of kid to so call “bend the truth.” He says it how it is. It is either a lie or it is the complete honest to god truth. There is defiantly a distinctive balance between these two subjects and Foer leaves no grey area in the middle. I think Oskar justifies the lies he tells to his mother by telling the precise truth to all the Blacks he meets.
Lastly—the balance of humor and sadness. As Stephen K said in another blog topic, “humor is needed to balance out the sadness in the book.” Foer creates the humor for the reason that this book is sad. Again, this is an example of using counterweight to maintain equilibrium.
Balance is defiantly a major theme throughout this book that is worth talking about. I believe it is part of the way Foer writes and it is his style to have an opposite for everything. He uses this as an advantage to craft a meaningful and worthwhile book that many readers have obviously enjoyed.
I have a similar, yet different interpretation of the doorknob pictures and why they are placed throughout the novel. I do agree with Greg M’s idea that they are placed randomly in the novel. For this reason, they could represent the journal style of the story. Thomas did take the pictures of the doorknobs in their house and placed them randomly in his blank journals that he used to write and communicate in. This could have been a way to stay close to his house or also a way to remember his past once he left. Door knobs are how a person either enters a room or exits a room, so the pictures showing the lock may symbolize how he is locked out of his house once he left his wife and is no longer welcome, while the one picture without the lock symbolizes the day that Oskar’s Grandma let him back into her life and their home.
As Thomas uses up his journals he is constantly being reminded of the home he left. The rest of the novel is written in journal form either by Oskar or Oskar’s Grandmother. While Oskar narrates his story it could be representative of his Grandfather’s journals in the sense that pictures of not only doorknobs, but also other things he sees in his lifetime, are randomly placed throughout the narrative. However, for Oskar they do not remind him of home, they remind his of his mission and his father.
As im reading through and trying to post comments on some of the other topics, im noticing things are just constantly being repeated and im having a really hard time trying to come up with new things to say.
While I was reading, I found lots of things that the book never really answers in the end. For example, I never found a reason why the grandpa lost his speaking ability. I could have missed something that explains that, but for now I don't see why he did. And why exactly didn't Oskar answer the phone on 9/11 when his father called? there are just many things i found that the book never really completes.
As im reading through and trying to post comments on some of the other topics, im noticing things are just constantly being repeated and im having a really hard time trying to come up with new things to say.
While I was reading, I found lots of things that the book never really answers in the end. For example, I never found a reason why the grandpa lost his speaking ability. I could have missed something that explains that, but for now I don't see why he did. And why exactly didn't Oskar answer the phone on 9/11 when his father called? there are just many things i found that the book never really completes.
In response to Corrie S P's post; my opinion is that the grandpa lost his voice simply because he could no longer find the will to speak, or anything worthwhile to say. His life was so fraught with tragedy by that time that maybe it just seemed a waste of time. Obviously once it was gone he missed it, but only partially because I think he found it simpler and easier to process the people around him by just having a few key phrases. I think it was an unanwsered problem in the book for that reason, there isn't one. I never found a solid reason that he lost his voice either, it just happened.
After reading the parts about the phone calls on the morning of 9/11, I think Oskar was simply to shocked to anwser. This is an instance where I think Oskar's true age really shows, he just looks at the phone because I don't think he understands the importance or the consequences of not. Another thing that was never really anwsered, atleast for me, was the scenarios involving the airport and his grandparents, especially at the end of the story. I understand the signifigance of neither coming nor going, but at the same time I don't.
I want to comment on what Cassandra W said about the last game thing. I was thinking about that at the beginning of the book. I didn't realize until later when I was reading some of the blogs that the key could symbolize something other then just the last game between Oskar and his father. I thought that through the whole book that that was why Foer put in the key. I thought the reason Oskar started the search was to try and be with his father still. To kind of keep his father alive in some way. I belived that Oskar wanted to find the key so bad because he thought his father had planned it all and maybe it gave him false hope. It gave him the idea that his father was still alive when he wasn't. I just wanted to comment on her comment :)
Vinny your comment about the title really caught my interest. I thought that use of the hand for the title was different too. (Especially the use of the fingers.) Fingers (to me) are considered the next source of communication, after the mouth. Thomas (the renter) uses his fingers to write, and when he can’t write he uses them to show Oskar’s grandmother what he’s thinking. I thought it was neat how Foer put the title on the fingers, making it so they are the main and immediate source of communication to the readers. To me it was like the Title was being spoken through the hand, flowing from the fingers into our hands, hearts. It also reminded me of like sign language. Hands are the source of touch, and feel, I think Foer used the hand to emphasize the idea of deep feeling and communication.
I agree with Amanda and Vinny that the hand is well used on the cover. The thing that caught my attention is that the hand, Oskar's grandfathers right hand is the hand. But his right hand had "NO" tattooed on it. When I think of yes and know I usually think of my right hand being yes. It might be that way just because I am right handed, I don't know. I just see that Foer is putting "NO" on the front of the book. I don't understand it.
To join the conversation about the cover and help "decode" it's mystery, I was thinking maybe it is like the picture to one of the main themes/ideas presented in this book.
Until Oskar met his grandfather he had rather pessimistic and pretty straight-forward ways of looking at how his father died. Oskar's grandpa writes, "'Maybe he saw what happened and ran in to save somebody'" (255). Although Oskar knows this is not the likely way his father died, it gives him incredible insight. I would have to say it almost changes his outlook on how to view things in the world. (Which is completely ironic seeing that the most depressed character in the book created optimism in one of the least depressed.) I say this because the last pages of the book are pictures of what could be Oskar's father falling upwards rather than downwards. I think these pages complete what Oskar was looking for and satisfies him even though he knows it is not realistic. This thought process and closure on the dead also reminded me of how Oskar says, "I never went to find him on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, because I was happier believing he was there than finding out for sure" (286). I believe after meeting with his grandpa, Oskar was inspired to no longer looked at things in a very pessimistic way.
So what does this have to do with the title? Well, I was also wondering about why the title is placed where it is and after reading Amanda R W's comment on how hands are like the second way of communication it came to me: This is about interpreting life's events and tragedies in a new light and way. Why else would the writing be sideways? It is a different way. And so is the hand being a different way of communication. Also it is odd how the colors are reversed on the cover. Doesn't it seem like red should be the background and the background color on the hand? I am not completely sure on this last thought because the inside of the next page is pretty much a reversal. Any thoughts about that page?
Also, This was a little while back but I thought Lisa F P and Sarah S P's comments on the pictures on the last pages of the book kind of had to do with this and I was thinking maybe it is a reflection of Oskar's new interpretation of death.
In this book I see a lot of maturity. When its either a twelve year old doing CSI work in the middle of Central Park or a grandmother explaining to her grandson how she lost her virginity (8,84). Before Oskar's father died thats was when he really did the CSI business; and that was two years ago. Oskar would really have been ten years old. In this day and era not many ten year olds are going around to parks and looking for clues that there father left them. Since Oskar was young he seemed to always showed maturity. Then the time came for when Oskar's grandmother told him and us the readers what it was like for her to lose her virginity to her sisters' old signifigant other. It must have taken Oskar a lot to listen that. I am fourteen years old and still have not been told things that Oskar has.
I would also like to add that Oskar must be really advanced to be taking private French lessons. To be learning a very tedious language. When Oskar forges the letter to skip French lessons with Cher Marcel, he seemed to be very good and writing it. To be in the seemingly role of his mother and and to be a fluent person in it seems to be amazing. Many teenagers do not have that level (51).
Lastly I would like to agree with Alexandra M when she says, "Some of the perts of the novel where sex is described make my jaw drop a little because the author describes them in a way that you can picture it perfectly" and she is right. Not many in-mature teenagers let alone kids younger then that having to be able to sit through that kind of conversation with their grandmother. Oskar is very mature for a tweleve year old; escpecially after losing his father in 9-11.
To add to Cara T I loved how at the end the pictures went backwards. When I saw them I wrote in my book that it was his way of closer for his dad, along with becoming optimectic.
Corrie S asked "why exactly didn't Oskar answer the phone on 9/11 when his father called?" I didn't really see a reason for him not to answer other than that he was afraid or he knew what was happening and did not want to believe it and the only way he could ignore it and try to hope for a second everything is ok would be to not answer the phone.
I also found the way he just ignored the call interesting. I work with children with disabilities and some of their behaviors stick out and relate in my mind. When they become overwhelmed and do not know how to handle many situations their brains shut down. Although the reader does not know if Oscar has a disability or not some of his thoughts can suggest so. In my personal experiences, Oscar having a disability would explain why he did not answer the phone when his father called.
No matter how much of importance it may be, I noticed something I found rather interesting within the chapter, "Alive and Alone" (234). The renter walks in on Oskar while he is searching for his grandmother, "I asked the renter, 'Can I tell you my story?' He opened his left hand. So I put my story into it" (238). I was surprised about how easily Oskar opens up to this random stranger inside of his grandmother's home and how eager Oskar is to tell him his life story.
Another thing that really caught my eye, is when Oskar names off all of the different Black's he has encountered. The names respectively fall in alphabetical order. "Abe Black, Bernie Black, Chelsea Black, Don Black, Eugene Black, Fo Black, Georgia Black, Iris Black, Jeremy Black, Kyle Black, Lori Black, Mark Black, Nancy Black, Ruth Black..." (239-243). However, there is no "H" or "O" names, and it ends with Ruth, so the alphabet does not finish. I am not sure what this symbolizes or if this means anything at all, but it did strike me as intriguing.
To help Conner D W, I don’t think that the hand on the cover is a right or left hand. Because if u look at it, it could be a right hand with the palm facing toward your face. But it could also be the left hand with the palm facing down. It just depends on how you look at it., if you are optimistic or pessimistic.
I agree with Sarah F P, I think it is sort of ironic how he opens up to the renter and wants to tell him his story. Though he doesn’t know that it is his grandfather it is like subconsciously he knows that this man is related to him in some way and he can trust him.
One last note, as I was reading the end of the book I noticed more and more opposites. For example he contradicts himself a lot, or will say one thing and then a couple sentences down say the opposite of that. For example he states, “But it was unnecessary” and a couple lines down he says, “It’s always necessary” (314). Another example is on page 322 he says, “Were you afraid of him dying?” “ I was afraid of him living.” “Why?” He wrote, “Life is scarier than death.” In these couple of sentences he uses the opposites life and death to even out death, which is bad, and life, which is good. He balances them out by putting them next to each other. I believe he does this very often, and it is to give the reader something to think about, like life or death.
Demitra A W I really liked how you made the cover another part to the story, making it either pessimistic or optimistic. The cover seems to be interpreted differently for each person, while at the same time being very similar. I thought of the cover as being only optimistic, because if you notice putting your left hand down, the "NO" hand, as Connor D W pointed out would be facing down and your right hand would face up, the "YES" hand.
Personally I saw that as a good outlook on the rest of the story. I believe that in the midst of a sad story, Oskar created his own happy story. He grew up and gained connections with people. He learned about the life around him and death too. He is, in my opinion, maybe more mature than some people my own age. His story is a happy one.
On the last written page of the book, 326, the words “would have” appear 19 times. Oskar talks about all the things that would have gone differently, ending with the line, “We would have been safe.” Because using “would have’s” and “if only’s” implies that one isn’t okay with something that happened and they would have changed it, and they think of what they could have done; I wonder if Oskar has come to terms with his father’s death. Though he has come a long way and grown up through out the novel, we aren’t left with answers to some of our lingering questions: What happened to Mr. Black? Is Oskar finally over the death of his Dad? Will Thomas Schell leave Oskar’s grandmother again?
The way Foer ends this novel, unfortunately, is realistically. It is human nature to ask “what if” and “would have”, and this is what Oskar does closing the story. I certainly wouldn’t describe the end as a cliff-hanger, but we are left with questions, as I pointed out earlier. The question that sticks out to me the most is whether or not Oskar is over the death of his father. I’m inclined to think that he isn’t quite yet over it, only because, still, on the last written page of the book he says, “We would have been safe.” He doesn’t follow this statement with, “But we weren’t safe, and that’s the way it is” or “But those are all just would have’s and I have to start dealing with the face that moving on is part of life.” I would be very curious to find out what you all think? Seriously, do you guys think that Oskar is over his Dad or not? I'm very curious to hear what you people think.
Jennifer M brings up an excellent point regarding the end of the book and the final questioning nature. And like her, I have to ask, is it not human nature to question life? She states, "The way Foer ends this novel, unfortunately, is realistically." This is the point upon which Jennifer and I must disagree. Why does a realistic ending have to be unfortunate?
Foer struggles throughout the novel to create an impression of realistic emotion. A realistic ending must be expected after passages such as, "I saw humans melted into thick pools of liquid...parts of their bodies that were submerged in the water were still intact, while the parts that protruded above water were charred beyond recognition" (211-213). We live in a society where happy endings and fairy tales are expected and where we struggle more often with the harsh realities of real life. Foer creates a novel which forces us to struggle through true emotions and therefore settles ourselves with these emotions. A person can never truly "come to terms with his father’s death" (Jennifer) but that person can begin to understand the emotions that are associated with the loss and therefore move on in life.
"The way Foer ends this novel, unfortunately, is realistically."(Jenifer M W) I don't see anything realistic about the ending. I have never thought of myself as one who stays inside the box, but i found it extraordinary that this little boy thought of changing the fate of the man in the picture like that, even if it does nothing to change reality.
As for Jenifer M's question. 'Seriously, do you guys think that Oskar is over his Dad or not?' I say that oskar is beginning to get over his dad. After all, on page 324, he tells his mom its o.k. if she falls in love again, when at the beginning of the story Oskar became furious at the though of his mother laughing with Ron.
One thing that i noticed is that Oskar and his grandfather, Thomas, are both inventors of sorts, as i consider artists inventors. Not to mention on page 208 Thomas says ' I started to invent future homes for us,' But, while Thomas's inventions were to show Anna that they could be happy anywhere(p209), Oskar's inventions are all to help people, like his birdseed shirt(p2).
In response to Jenifer M's question: "Seriously, do you guys think that Oskar is over his Dad or not?" I agree with Jaclyn S's response of "Oskar is beginning to get over his dad." After all, I think the characterization of this whole story was showing, from start to finish, the change that Oskar made from being completely dependent on the memory of his father to learning to let go and live his life, while still maintaining the respectful memory for his dad that he wanted. I think a good sign that Oskar is beginning to open up and let go is the fact that, after the tells his mother about the messages his dad left, he has a good, long cry, which is an outpouring of emotions, especially bottled up ones. I think that that was a first step that Oskar was able to take on the road to healing after his dad's loss. Oskar says, "I cried so much that everything blurred into everything else." (353) Oskar even tells his mom he is going to try to be happy, which he was making no attempt to do before. On page 171, he tell his mom, "I'm not trying to find ways to be happy, and I won't... Dad would want me to remember him." At the very end of the book, however, he has clearly changed when he tell her, "I promise I'm going to get better soon... I'll be happy and normal." (323)
It's clear to see that by the end of the book, Oskar has begun to "get over his dad", meaning that instead of exiling himself to a life a depression longing after a dead person's memory, he can be happy while still remembering his father. He realizes that that's what his mother wants for him, what his father would want (his mom tells him his father would want him to be happy on page 171) and he finally realizes that is what's best for him as well. He doesn't want to be hospitalized! So, I don't think that Oskar is or will ever be "over" his dad, but by the end of the book he is learning to deal with and let go of the sadness surrounding his death.
First of all, thanks to everyone for all their input. They're so interesting to read! I recently finished reading and I had marked the chapter "Alive and Alone" on page 234 as something I might want to read again. I've noticed in most novels that there seems to be one section or chapter in the book that summarizes all of the emotions and main events of the book into a neat little blurb, and for "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," I think this is it. I loved the way Foer brought the ideas of the book into each other as one sole emotion; he leaves the reader feeling extremely alone. Often times, Foer does this with a memory or a "Dad would've" story that reminds the reader of the incredible amount of loss and detachment Oskar has suffered from the death of his father. This ties into Amanda's blog on humor of Foer wanting to show the world the way it is. In this case; lonely. In general I think this is yet another ingenious tool Foer uses to communicate with the reader.
Something that I've noticed in the book is how many times birds come up, beginning even before the novel with the picture in the front of the book. In the picture, the birds are all a little blurred and look like they've just been scared or something, and they all hurried to get up and fly away quickly.
Oskar first mentions a birdseed shirt on page 2. "And also, there are so many times when you need to make a quick escape, but humans don't have their own wings, or not yet, anyway, so what about a birdseed shirt?"
Then again on page 3, when he is talking about his idea of a building that moves for you, "Everyone could be safe, even if you left your birdseed shirt at home that day."
Oskar continues mentioning birdseed shirts throughout the book, and I think they are connected to the pictures of the person falling from the builing seen in pictures on page 59, 62, 205, etc. If that man had had a birdseed shirt, he would be going up instead of down, just like if Oskar's dad had a birdseed shirt, maybe Oskar would still have him.
Birds are also mentioned a lot in grandma's first letter to Oskar, first when she's telling Oskar about the time her and a friend were jumping on a bed, "Our laughter kept the feathers in the air. I thought about birds. Could they fly if there wasn't someone, somewhere, laughing?"[78] And then, when talking about her sister, Anna, on page 80, "She laughed enough to migrate an entire flock of birds."
Oskar's grandma is saying that laughter makes birds able to fly.
When Oskar's grandma is being sculpted, she would say how the birds were singing in the other room. She says it a total of three timeson pages 83 and 84, each time she says it after she says what he [Oskar's grandma] is doing.
On page 165, a flock of birds randomly flies by the window near Oskar and Mr. Black, but Oskar says how they looked like one bird, because they all knew exactly what to do. That is also when you see the enlarged picture of the birds from the beginning of the book. Right before the flock of birds fly by, Oskar asks Mr. Black if he'll help him find the lock, and Oskar helps Mr. Black to hear again. Mr. Black hearing the birds made him start crying.
In the very back of the book, if you flip through the pictures of the person falling from the building, he is actually going up. I think that this may have to do with having a birdseed shirt, even though there aren't any birds around him.
To answer Jennifer M’s question, “seriously do you guys think that Oskar is over his Dad or not?” it is not possible to easily get over the death or a parent, but Oskar is trying to move on with his life and come to terms with the situation. Throughout the novel, Oskar uses all of his time and energy to try to feel close to his father. He knows that he is dead, but has not yet accepted the idea that he is gone. The search for the lock is Oskar’s main way of staying close to his father. In his mind, if he just keeps looking he will find something real, tangible that he can hold onto his dad through. But by the end of the novel, as others have mentioned, Oskar has shown signs of moving on. The fact that he opens up to Thomas and lets him listen to the messages shows that he is not holding the secret inside of him anymore (255). He is finally able to share a detail about his father to someone other than the people who knew him best. By letting go of the search for the lock Oskar is able to move on with his life and stop living in his father’s life. And the final event that shows Oskar has begun to move on is the fact that he dug up his father’s coffin. This was his final way to say good-bye to him since he was unable to do it over the phone for whatever reason.
The last chapter of the novel is Oskar’s reminder of his last moments with his father. By remembering the time when they were safe, it shows that Oskar is still living in the past despite how much he has grown. By remembering his father alive he stops “inventing how he died” (256) and gives him comfort thinking that his father is still alive and safe. Oskar is getting over the death of his father one step at a time. The ending shows hope for the future.
I find it quite intresting what Elise D had came up with. When she said, "Something that I've noticed in the book is how many times birds come up" and I really did not see it before until now. Its true that birds are mentioned all throughout the book. What is Foer trying to say? Wwhy is it that they're so many birds throughout this novel.
When Oskar's grandmother was telling him about her first time it says, "birds were singing in the other room" (84). Then when Oskar was with Mr. Black it says in the novel, "then, out of nowhere, a flock of birds flew by the window, extremely fast and incredibly close" (165). This also represents how the title of the novel is seen throughout the book.
No matter where you see, there are birds seen every where throughout the book. Its quite amazing to see how easily it is to miss it; but when you look closely you see. I can truly say that Foer is a very surprising author of a very detailed, graffic, and intresting book.
Like Elise D and Emily M both pointed out, birds do make many appearances throughout the book, I noticed this trend on page 80 when Anna is being described; "She laughed enough to migrate an entire flock of birds." I didn't really think it was very significant until I read the comments on this blog and started to connect the dots.
It is my opinion that the birds in this book represent the more hopeful emotions that the characters experience. The classic archetype for birds is freedom and peace, and they seem to make their appearance mostly when the characters are feeling these things or are longing for them. For example, when Oskar is trying to help Mr. Black hear, it says, "then, out of nowhere, a flock of birds flew by the window, extremely fast and incredibly close." (pg. 165)
Elise made a good point about the relationship between the birdseed shirt and the pictures: "Oskar continues mentioning birdseed shirts throughout the book, and I think they are connected to the pictures of the person falling from the building seen in pictures on page 59, 62, 205, etc. If that man had had a birdseed shirt, he would be going up instead of down, just like if Oskar's dad had a birdseed shirt, maybe Oskar would still have him." I think since Oskar invents things to help him cope with situations in life that overwhelm him, the birdseed shirt would probably give a person the ability to fly. This device would allow his father to escape and Oskar would not have to go through the tragedy he did. I believe that in the end when the person is falling up instead of down, it is because Oskar imagines peace and freedom he would still be living in, if the events of 9/11 hadn't taken place.
In her last post I really liked how Demetra A W said, "I don’t think that the hand on the cover is a right or left hand. It just depends on how you look at it, if you are optimistic or pessimistic." This statement gave me more insight on the cover and I thought it supported what I was trying to say in my last post as well.
Also since all of our cover ideas are related I thought I might mesh some more together. Sarah F P talks about Oskar's perculiar trust in the renter; "'Can I tell you my story?' He opened his left hand. So I put my story into it" (238). After reading that and a few other comments I had this crazy idea that, what if the hand on the front represents Oskar's story being placed into his grandfather's hands? Obviosuly, this has a much more symbolic meaning, such as the renter being the end of Oskar's search for understanding and healing, and the beginning of a turning point of realistic optimism.
And speaking of realistic optimism I would like to answers Jennifer M W's question, "Seriously, do you guys think that Oskar is over his Dad or not?" I do not think at the point the book ends Oskar is completely over his father's death. I don't think he will ever be "over" it, but I do think he will forgive his father and begin to process and continue his closure with a realistically optimistic attitute. You can begin to see this in effect when his mother is tucking him into bed and he tells her it is OK to fall in love again and actually falls asleep in seven minutes(324-325). This shows he has accepted his mother's way of healing and also realizes he cannot control her life. This acceptance of reality also becomes apparent in the way he views death, such as in his father's case. I think the last lines in the book are increadibly realistic but also they are presented in a way that the reader is not sad, they are almost lighthearted and complete by it. I would have to say this embodies and reflets the chapter "Beautiful and True" that it is in (315).
I would like to reply to Lauren E's comment. Throughout the entire book, Oskar is talking about his birdseed shirt. I saw that you mentioned it in your last comment, and I have no idea what this is.
The past few comments have been talking about birds and how they relate to birds. Every Character relates to birds, especially Oskar because the only way his spirit can be free from his point of view is finding the answer to his father's last game. Throughout the book this quest controls Oskar's every move and his entire life.
His grandma also relates to a bird because for the longest time she had a very controlled environment like the 'Nothing Spaces'. This controlled everything her and her husband did in their apartment. Once her husband left her entire life became more relaxed and she became like the bird.
The birds that Foer cleverly placed along the plot always stood out to me. Emily M described the main ones, “When Oskar’s grandmother was telling him about her first time it says, ‘birds were singing in the other room’ (84). Then Oskar was with Mr. Black Foer says, ‘then, out of nowhere a flock of birds flew by the window’ (165). These two stood out to me because of how strange they were, how almost awkwardly, they were placed. When we read about Ms.Shells first time we don’t expect to read anything about birds, just about her or Thomas. But then when I thought about it, I noticed to music connected to it, “birds were singing” and then that connected to being happy. I also thought it was weird, at first, that Mr. Black heard birds as soon as he turned on his hearing aid. I expected a car’s horn or a radio, but no it was the flock of birds and that made me think of the music and happiness again. Hearing that for the first time in years must have been like “music to his ears”. I thought the use of birds was a great way to make the reader pay more attention to the story. It was like he wanted me to look for the connections to each of the incidences with birds; like Foer had placed little puzzles in the text just for me.
I would like to reply to Corrie S's comment to Oskar's spirit being freed after he finds the answer the his fathers last game. Oskar's fathers death has taken a big toll in his life, meaning everything is being controlled by it. When Oskar goes to visit Aaron Black on page 90, he rings the bell to talk to him and Aaron says that he is hooked up to machines so he can't come to the door, so Oskar should come to see him and they could talk about the key. "You're on the ninth floor, and I don't go that high," Oskar says.
Every time that Oskar enters his apartment he takes the stairs up to his room because he won't take the elevator, I'm assuming because he thinks his dad died in an elevator.
Everything that he does is controlled by this event, and until he figures everything out, Oskar won't be able to have his bird spirit.
A point I would like to bring up is Oscars inability to face the truth. With his small talk to avoid talking about his dad, and the way he wont speak to the therapist about it. Could this have something to do with the freedom of Oskars spirit? If he were to solve his fathers last puzzle and his spirit was free, could he finally open up about his father because he has had closer?
On the subject of Demitra A and Taylor R's blogs about the position of the hand on the cover, I also see these two outcomes of the positive and negative effects. If the reader views the hand as the left and facing down, I think this is Foer's way of showing the negative outcome of 9/11 and Oskar's quest of the key. If the reader views the hand as the right and facing upwards, I think Foer uses this to show how Oskar's quest brought him a lasting bond with his father and family. Since the hand can be viewed both ways, it shows that there are both positive and negative outcomes in the story.
The appearance of birds throughout the novel may very well be as simple as Lauren E suggested. They are signs of peace and freedom. The scene where Oskar turns Mr. Black’s hearing aids back on for the first time in years represents freedom from silence and loneliness. The birds that fly by his window are signs of Mr. Black’s entrapment and oppression he has been living under. Not only do birds represent freedom, they can also be signs of flight. Mr. Black is able and willing to leave his apartment for the first time since his wife died after he regains his hearing. The birds in his case gave him freedom, flight, and peace to move on with his life. The concept of the birdseed shirt and also the pictures of the object rising up through the air at the end of the novel represent freedom from death and destruction. They also give Oskar peace of mind to think that the wearer of the shirt and also the falling object will be saved and given another chance to live. Flight can also represent movement and change. It has been established that almost every character in the novel experiences change and growth from the beginning to the end. The pictures and references to birds throughout is a constant reminder of the changes occurring. Whether it is “birds singing in the other room” (84) or the fact that "She laughed enough to migrate an entire flock of birds" (80), the bird images seem to connect to the character’s peace and freedom.
Along with the hand on the front of the cover, I noticed that there is a hand on the back as well. This reminded me of how Oskar used his hands like a book to communicate to his wife. I think this also goes with the thought of optimistic and pessimistic like Demitra, Taylor, and Brittany have been talking about; if you think Oskar's grandfather's hands represent a closed or open book.
Another thing I wanted to talk about is on pages 269-272. In this scene Oskar's grandfather is calling his wife for the first time since he left her. The only problem is he cannot talk so he pushes buttons to communicate his messages. Was anyone able to decode any of it? In the beginning I was able to make out "My name is", but the curious part is it does not spell Thomas. I was wondering why would he call her if he cannot talk? Isn't that the point of calling someone? Also, if it is nearly impossible to decode his message when given the numbers, it is practically impossible to figure out his message by the tone of beeps. Why would he even consider calling his wife if it a very difficult way to communicate? Also there are repeated numbers like “2,6,5,4,5” and “6,5,5,57” (270).
These numbers do not seem to spell anything which got me wondering if Foer did not actually mean to say anything. If he just meant to spell gibberish to represent Oskar’s grandfather’s life.
This also reminded me of the jewelry that Oskar made with beads out of numbers to represent Morse code.
Just to go back a little bit and answer Jennifer M W's question about whether or not Oskar is over his father's death, I would like to pose another question in response. If, for whatever reason, your mom or dad passed away, would you be "over" it in just two short years? Most certainly not, I would think. Infact, I do not think that I could ever get over such a resounding blow. I believe that, no matter what, the loss of someone that close and important in anyone's life will deeply affect them for the rest of that life. The only thing that we can truly do over such a terrible loss is to move on, and this is exactly what I believe that Oskar is doing. Throughout the entire book, Oskar is harping on his father's death and cannot seem to shake thoughts of how his father died and how it could have been prevented.
At the end of the book, however, I think he is begining to move on from this phase. Obviously, Oskar will probably never get to the point where he is not saddened by the early death of his father, but at the very least, he may not find it neccassary to constantly punish himself over something that was out of his control.
Kelci B brings up a very valid point about “[Oskar’s] inability to face the truth.” I would like to expand upon this idea by first noting that inability to face the truth is otherwise known as denial. In all reality, I believe Oskar KNOWS his father is not coming back, but by showing the world around him that he refuses to accept his father’s tragic situation as the truth, he gives himself a sense of hope that maybe, just maybe, he will wake up and realize it was all a dream; his father will be back in his life. I think this is completely normal for someone to do when dealing with death. The first step is always denial and the grieving process sometimes doesn’t come till months or even years later. In the back of his mind, Oskar still wishes to run into his father somewhere and for his father to hold him and tell him that everything is okay. His father gives him a sense of belonging and security and when that sense is all of a sudden taken away, Oskar is separated from the one thing that kept him going. In order for him to move on through this tragedy, Oskar uses denial to guide him along the way. He doesn’t know what else to do. After all, he is just a nine year old boy.
On page 200, Oskar confesses, “On Tuesday afternoon I had to go to Dr. Fein. I didn’t understand why I needed help, because it seemed to me that you should wear heavy boots when your dad dies, and if you aren’t wearing heavy boots, then you need help.” When I read this, I automatically saw eye to eye with Oskar. When dealing with someone’s death, nobody wants to deal with the “annoying therapist” who wants to be your best friend and “help you with the situation.” Although I do appreciate therapists, I think Oskar should have had a choice as to whether or not he should go to therapy. I know his mother was just trying to help him cope with the situation, but Oskar is very independent and doesn’t need to rely on someone for help. I felt like Oskar was being pushed into getting over his father, and I don’t think anyone can tell you when the right time to move on is. When he feels he is ready, Oskar will slowly start to enter the next step—acceptance. But seeing as though this whole book took place within no more than a year from his father’s death, I think Oskar is still in the denial phase. When the time is right for Oskar himself (not his mother, or grandmother, or therapist) he will enter the next stage in the grieving process.
Breanna C brings up the fact that has gone untouched in our posts- there is also a hand on the back cover of the book. If you open your book and set it with the cover facing up, and then turn your palms upwards and place them on the hands you will see that the hands are indeed open. I believe that the open hands represent many things.
First of all, I think the open hands show our desire, as the readers, for the story that lies within the cover. As we read further and further into the story our hands are filled with more and more of whatever the novel has to offer.
Secondly, I believe the open hands represent the course of life. Because Foer tells the tale of life in a fictional novel, we can relate to the story. As life goes on, our hands start to fill with summer memories, and love letters, great vacations, and unforgettable friends.
Third, I believe the open hands represent the hands of Thomas Schell Sr. which have yes and no tattooed on them. These hands tell a portion of the story, and the changes that Thomas must deal with. It tells, us that he doesn’t always know what to do, but he always has a choice: yes or no.
Fourth, I think that the open hands represent our hands with yes and no tattooed on them. They represent the choices we make in life that shape our future. These hands are open. Similarly, every potential decision we make in life is open, that is, until we decide upon what we are going to do, then it is closed and in the past.
It’s possible that the hands do not represent all of these thoughts, or even any of them, for that matter. However, since Foer is such an intellectual man it’s very possible that he wanted to challenge and provoke the minds of the readers, just with the front and back cover of the book.
I think that Oskar is not able to face the truth because he does not know how to deal with it. He refuses to except the fact that his father is dead because he doesn't know how to deal with death. I think he didn't answer the last phone call because he knew his father was probably dying. Oskar says, "I've timed the message, and it's one minute and twenty-seven seconds. Which means it ended at 10:28. Which was when the building came down." He was afraid to face the truth and accept that his father is dead and never coming back. Oskar goes on the quest the find the key hoping to find his father and be with him. Oskar is also not able to face the fact that his mother wants to move on and be happy. He is unable to see how it is possible that his mother can be moving on after this terrible tragidy.
Its not until the end of the book when Oskar is able to face the truth. The book says, " 'Because it's the truth and dad loved the truth.' 'What truth?' 'That he's dead." Oskar has matured and has finally excepted the fact that his father is dead. He's also excepted that his mother is moving on and trying to be happy. By now, he is able to deal with the truth he has been hiding from.
Personally I think the hands are closed, encasing the closed book much like a prayer, but I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. OK so for those of us who are procrastinators and waiting for the last few hours to post our final comments I have a question related to the novel with regard to personality, considering procrastination is a personality trait.
Oskar invents things in his mind when he is trying to relax or is simply nervous, this is clearly a personality trait. Much like the scene on page 193 during which Oskar invents, "a postage stamp where the back tastes like creme brulee" Oskar's inventing times are intended to help him process his feelings in order to sleep. This odd personality trait might relate to a person's drive home from work during which he decompresses and processes the day's events. Oskar's mind is clearly hyperactive and this might cause him to be unable to process many problems that plague him.
Are there any other characters that have key personality traits that influence their paths and their daily lives? If so what's the significance of the personality trait?
I do agree with Gabriella when she stated that he had matured. But I don't believe he really needed to become more mature than he already is. He is extremely mature for his age already. The way he acts, thinks and talks are that of an older person. Maybe it wasn't that he matured so much as he realized that he can't pretend it didn't happen anymore. That isn't maturity exactly, it's more of a willingness that we hadn't seen in him yet. He had to learn to let go of his father because his father wasn't there anymore. Even in his search for the lock it was more of a security that he was searching for. Someone to tell him that everything would be okay and the only person, it seems, in his life that could do that was his father. Oskar's mother never takes on a motherly role and he needs that. I believe that is one of the reasons he attempts to be more grown up than he actually is. If he had someone to be the adult then he wouldn't have to be so mature and so alone.
Keaton F's comment really caught my attention. I think that Oskar uses inventing as almost a "security blanket" because it puts him at rest. I also think that Oskar's worrying has to do with what's around him. He is very concerned with his family and their well-being, and his own well being.
Another key personality trait shows up in Oskar's mom, and she wants to be healed and move on. She sees how devastated Oskar is, and she is too, but I think she has a rough time grieving infront of her son. I think she is resillient in hard times, and she feels that she needs to be strong for Oskar. At the same time, she needs someone for support, which is why Ron is in the picture.
To clarify I meant Gabriela D W. Sorry
In response to Keaton F's query:
I would think that Oskar's inability to effectively process the world around him was derived directly from his grandfather. His grandfather, while being intelligent, creative, and proficient in much of his life suffers from the inability to speak (or at least the inability to generate any kind of conscious verbal response). To lose the ability to speak (although I do not believe in the slightest that Oskar's grandfather is actually physically unable to speak) is an incredible metaphor for his loss of purpose and direction in life. As he lost himself creatively, he lost his verbal expression as well. He embodies so much of the human aspect of loss and withdrawal that he is left with little more than his meager existence as a failed sculptor and husband, but especially, as a father. And it is this deficiency, this disease that is what plagues Oskar. Although its appearance varies from individual to individual, the end result is similar. The individual shuts down completely to the point of near-vegetation. However, fortunately for Oskar and his grandfather, they have found the secret key to their success: each other. Through Oskar, his grandfather can once again try his hand at fatherhood, and through his grandfather, Oskar can once again have a dominant male figure in his life. For the both of them to survive, this is exactly what they needed. It was only a matter of time before either one of them would have imploded, but their compassion and understanding of one another saved both of them from the impending doom.
In this i kinda want to find out the whole point of all the things that we seem to discover in the novel. I do not know if this woulg go with the communication blog. Is it not funny how all these things in the book make it so, so different? We have the pictures, birds, the extreme maturity level, and the compelling story of a young boy holding on to the last thing he has of his dead father.
It is amazing how Foer can get all those things in one book and still make it intresting. It is a book you do not want to put down. The one thing i find amazing is when something in Oskar's life is happening and then Foer can find a picture to represent that.`An example is when Oskar is at Abby's hose and when he is leaving he gives her his card. His card explains everything about him and then there is a picture of Oskar's card (99).
Then we have the whole plot of the book of the boy searching for a last connection with his father. The story of Oskar Schell looking for the last clue of the mysterious key in the envelop with Black on it (37). So we can see different things in this book that makes it strange yet you cannot put it down.
I like what Katie W said that "[denial] is completely normal to do when dealing with death". It made me think that all this story really is is a journey through the effect of death on a young person's mind. As if the story was a record of that persons change in disposition and entire outlook on life. In this case that person is Oscar, and we observe as this inocent child is put through one of the worst experiences imaginealbe, and we watch as he slowly looses a grip on reality and happiness and slips into a cynical man who has lost the ability to trust.
I agree with what Ethan G said about Oskar's Grandfather and how he does not "believe in the slightest that Oskar's grandfather is actually physically unable to speak,” but that it "is an incredible metaphor for his loss of purpose and direction in life."
I believe that finding purpose after loosing it is one of the ideas that this novel skillfully embodies; the characters are all looking for a reason "to be" after they have lost direction. I think that Foer meant to show Oskar's grandfather's loss of purpose in particular with the loss of his voice. On page 126 Mr. Goldberg says to him that he is "trying to be." while commenting on his career. I think Oskar's grandfather really goes on to try "to be" many things; a sculptor, husband, father, but he ultimately cannot find true direction in any of these things. He merely exists without purpose because the one person he truly lived for, Anna, was taken from him. Oskar himself also is looking for a reason to live on after tragedy takes place. Ultimately I think the conclusion these characters are meant to reach is revealed on page 13 when Oskar’s father says “there doesn’t have to be a reason.”
Other references of the finding purpose theme appear throughout the book, but they are subtle; for example Oskar's "raisons d’être" (which translate into “reasons to be”.) Oskar is also in the play Hamlet, which contains the famous line "to be or not to be, that is the question," which Oskar mentions on page 142. On page 74 Oskar conjugates the verb etre to help him sleep. In French etre means "to be". Has anyone else noticed these in the text?
Lauren E made a great point in noticing the French verb and connecting it with Hamlet. “To be” (in English) conjugates to phrases such as “I am”, “you are”, “we are”, “it is”, and “they are”. I see a connection between this and his grandparents’ “nothing” and “something” spaces because in a “nothing” space they were no longer “to be” because there was nothing. As time went on more “nothing” spaces appeared which means that the grandparents were ceasing to exist; “to be”. The only way they got “something” was to be apart from each other. I believe that the use of being in the story translates into the happiness of the characters. The more “nothing” there was in their lives (the less they were “to be”) the less happy they were. When Oskar’s father ceased to be Oskar became depressed and when the “nothing” spaces appeared the grandparents were becoming less happy.
Another thing I realized with the sense of being was the fact that Oskar’s father’s body was not there. The coffin was empty. When he and his grandfather dig up the grave and put the letters inside of it they are, in a way, making the father exist. The letters were memories and Oskar said that “’His memory is here’, I said, pointing at my head,” (169) which shows that he believes his father exists in memory. This being said, Oskar and his grandfather could put the letters into the coffin and therefore have his father be. This would in turn fill the “nothing” space in their lives which gives them closure. Note that it would not replace the father.
As Oskar and the renter opened the coffin, he said "I was surprised that Dad wasn't there" (321). Although Oskar knew he was not going to be there he was still surprised. I think this is kind of a wake up call to Oskar. Because it was empty it really shows that his dad really is dead, and the key cannot bring him back, but it can only bring him closer mentally and spiritually. Christy said that the letters fill the nothingness of the coffin, but along with that would make Oskar's father something.
Emily M said, "I kind of want to find out the whole point of all the things that we seem to discover in the novel." To me, this meant that it seems that the journey to find the key was kind of pointless. It seems that his two years work went to waste trying to discover the "riddle" his dad left for him when he finds that the key was not ever his dads. But I saw it as not a waste. In the entire book Oskar is trying to please other people. Whether it is making them laugh or changing someone’s life entirely (for example Mr. Black, his grandfather and grandmother). Oskar's journey not only was a journey of closure but also brought him to people who I believe will be in his life forever.
I completely agree with Breanna C about the key having a meaning and purpose. It really was not about what the key opened but about the journey itself. Oskar’s journey touched numerous lives. He helped Mr. Black to hear (164) and the man to open his safety deposit box (299). Although these things have little meaning to Oskar they mean a lot to the people he helped out.
The journey itself gave Oskar a reason to keep going. It gave him hope and although it led to nothing the journey itself was something. Without having the key his father’s death would have been a complete dead end. Like previous posts noted, the key was extremely loud and incredibly close to him, as was his father, and (although I believe this has been stated before many times) it symbolizes his father.
I also noted the many doorknob pictures throughout the story which seem to be connected to the key journey because a key usually opens a door. With the pictures it is impossible for the viewer to tell what is beyond the doors—it is a mystery. The same is true with the key. Oskar could never know what was beyond the door the key opened, or for that matter, even what door the key opened. There are endless possibilities and the journey lands on a very unexpected one. The journey was one of opening doors and seeing what was beyond them. It wasn’t always what was expected or hoped for, but Oskar touches the people he meets and they touch him. Oskar had not wasted a bit of time because from his journey he learns from others and gains friends and experiences that will last forever. If he had not gone on the journey the key would have been something he would always look back on and wonder what it opened.
I feel that the key did not only help those that Oskar worked with, but also help himself. It gave him something to look forward to, an adventure. I feel that the key symbolizes the journey that Oskar took and also may symbolize his father's relationship that he had with Oskar.
I agree with Christy H. when she talks about the mysteries of the key and the doors. Oskar had chances to learn new things from his experience and even though the whole mystery did not turn out how he expected it to, he picked up on some new things and also he learned some valuable lessons from some interesting people. The book sends the message to keep trying and to not give up on anything that is really important to you. Oskar never gave up, even though at times he may have felt like he was at a dead end.
I agree with Greg M when he says " feel that the key did not only help those that Oskar worked with, but also help himself. It gave him something to look forward to, an adventure." Oskar had only the thrill of mysteries and hidden secrets to look forward. These helped give Oskar a taste of adventure, and helped him through a lot of hard times. Without the key, Oskar would not have so much in his life to look forward to.
I think Oskar felt that the only thing he had left of his father, was the key. It was the connection between the living and the dead. Oskar didn't want to let go of his father, but what helped him was the symbol of the key. Oskar depended on the key to help him through his journey.
Oskar's journey seems to have helped a great deal with his life and the life of others he was around in a sense the journey was an overall healing and helpful experience for all those involved, such as Mr.Black who had not left his apartment in years and also hadn't heard a sound in years gradually he and Oskar grew close and helped each other to heal from the things that afflicted them.
I agree with what Greg M said about the key being a symbol of the journey that Oskar took and the healing but their are also more themes associated with the key such as opening which in the novel helps to open peoples minds and heart such as when Mr.Black cries when his hearing aids are once again turned on after years, or when Abby black cries when her and Oskar are talking about the elephants.
I also see where Christy H With the pictures and her point that it is impossible for the viewer to tell what is beyond the doors—it is a mystery.And referring to those pictures it seems that the key opens Oskar up to a whole new world of possibilities both literally and figuratively.In the begining he seemed to be in distress until the symbol of the entire story and objective of the journey is found the key.
The discovery of the key not only start Oskar off on his journey but makes him realize he wants to be closer to his father through it.When he finds it he even says that he wanted to give himself a bruise for not noticing it earlier and although the key didn't hold any true answers it gave him drive to do something great and brought him out of his slump and into a new world with different and entertaining people.
I agree with Kirsten P that the key “helped him through a lot of hard times.” He had a goal whereas if he didn’t he would just be twisted inside the world of his dead father and would be suffering without an outlet. The key was Oskar’s way out of that.
On a separate topic I would also like to note Oskar’s use of the phrase “we would be safe” (326) at the end of the story. Wouldn’t he use “’he’ would be safe” as in referring to his father? Instead he includes himself which shows how he considers himself a part of him. It could also show that he felt he was with his father when it happened. Either way, in saying that he is stating some part of himself died in 9/11 with him.
Also, because of his father's death, Oskar is no longer “safe”. He gives himself bruises and never lets himself be happy. He punishes himself constantly and I think this shows how he is not “safe” from himself without his father.
On one hand I agree with Kirsten P that the key “helped him through a lot of hard times,” but on the other hand I also felt a tinge of disagreement. Both her and Christy explained that the key was a distraction to Oskar's grief, thus helping him cope. In the end though, I think the key served disappointment to Oskar. I think Oskar was expecting a revelation connected to his father; another way to still feel him. Instead, the possession of this key happened by chance, found in a vase purchased at a garage sale."'...In the blue vase, on the shelf in the bedroom, is a key.'" (page 298) I do not think Oskar was satisfied with what his results were. I thought it was strange how he did not want to see what was inside of William Black's safe though. As a reader, I was kind of disappointed because my curiosity wanted to know what was in it! So in some ways, I do not think that the key helped Oskar's grief. I am torn between the two possibilities.
Christen N raises a good point when she says that it seemed that oskar was somewhat disappointed with the whole idea of the key. Although many people mentioned the key as something Oskar used to cope with his fathers death I disagree with that notion. Yes it took Oskars restless mind off of the thought but it didnt seem to help him in the healing process. The places the key took him were much more important to Oskar than the actual key. I also agree its interesting that Oskar didnt want to know what was in the safe. As curious as Oskar is, i would have thought that it would "consume" him, (for lack of a better term). As a reader I was a little disappointed with the ending due to my curiosity as to what was in the safe and if it could have somehow been significant to Oskar. But without knowledge of what the item was this brings me to the conclusion that the key was not a significant factor in Oskars healing.
Christy H, I loved how you brought up the topic of the use of “we would be safe” (326), instead of “he would be safe.” When I first thought about this, it seemed to me that Oskar used these words in a selfish manner; however, the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that it was just as tragic for Oskar as it was for his father to actually experience the tragedy. Oskar was left alone without the comfort of saying goodbye and “I love you” for the last time to his father. I have come to the conclusion that it is WAY harder for the person that is left behind to deal with the situation then for the person that died. Now, although this may sound bad, at least Oskar’s father wasn’t left with the feeling of the unknown, and the lonely isolated sensation that Oskar has to survive with. When Christy was talking about how Oskar used “WE” instead of “HE”, she says, “Instead he includes himself which shows how he considers himself a part of him. It could also show that he felt he was with his father when it happened.” I couldn’t agree more with her. Oskar had a bond with his father that had established a sense of comfort and safety within the both of them. When that bond was separated by death, Oskar lost his “safety blanket” and was thrown into the world of unknown and forced to face the road of reality all by himself. I think that when Oskar wrote, “WE would have been safe” he is summarizing to the reader the effect these attacks had on him.
I also believe that the word “WE” could have been intended to be talking about everyone else that experienced what Oskar did. Oskar could be talking about the world as a whole, and sympathizing with the people around him that underwent the suffering and abandonment that he did. I realized my initial thinking of the words being selfish were absolutely incorrect. It is the complete opposite from selfish actually. When a death occurs to someone close, you are literally giving up a part of you; the least selfish thing that can happen.
Garrett E's most recent post talks about how he thinks Oskar's quest to find the key disappointed him in the end, I fully agree with this. Oskar's father loved to play games with him, such as on page 8, "A great game that Dad and I would sometimes play on Sundays was Reconnaissance Expedition." His father left clues for him, "I noticed that Dad was using a fork, even though he was perfect with chopsticks. 'Wait a minute!' I said, and stood up. I pointed at his fork. 'Is that fork a clue?' He shrugged his shoulders, which to me meant it was a major clue."(pg 8).
When Oskar found the key hidden away in a blue vase that didn't belong he automatically thought it was a clue for one last game with his dad. The whole book is about Oskar going around to stranger's houses asking them if they knew his dad or anything about the key. Finding out that the key belonged to someone else and was for something that had nothing to do with his dad Oskar was extremely disappointed. I would be too.
I disagree with Garrett though, when he says that finding the lock for the key wasn't part of Oskar's healing process. It may not have ending up being what Oskar hoped it would be, but it helped distract him and it took him out of his house and to new places. In these new places, he met many more people, over came a few of his fears and sawmany new sights. He also became friends with Mr. Black from 6A in Oskar's building. I think Mr. Black was a TON like Oskar's father, and I think that helped him.
Katie, I absolutely loved that you mentioned that Oskar may be talking about the world as a whole. I had not thought of that and it really connects to 9/11 completely. It is as if Oskar is reaching out to all who suffered from that tragedy and acting as if the world is one being. On his entire journey he seemed quite self-centered and had to have everything his way, but in the last statement it is as if he realizes that others felt pain from the tragedy too, not just him. From all the adventure Oskar had throughout the book the last statement shows that he grew as a person from it and in that way he is a dynamic character.
On another note, I noticed on the last pages that Oskar is reversing the pictures so “it looked like the man was floating up through the sky” (325). Even though I know that Oskar is an atheist it seemed very surreal and dreamlike. On the next page he states that his father would have gone from “’I love you’ to ‘Once upon a time…’” (326). This further shows that the world is in that fantasy-dream state. I also noticed that Oskar says that “Dad” was the same forward and backward (326). I think this is like if Oskar went back in time he would’ve seen his father as the same as when he was alive. The last few paragraphs of the book leave the confines of reality that most of the book had taken place in and dropped off in that dream-like state. I recall a few paragraphs where Oskar had fantasies (such as the play [146]), but these reverted back to reality. I find it very interesting that Oskar leaves it in the surreal quality.
I disagree with Garrett E on the notion that the key is “not a significant factor in Oskar’s healing.” Without the key there is no way Oskar could have met the people he met or gone the places that helped him grow as a person. I do agree that the places he goes are more important than the key itself but to get to those places he needed the key. It was those people and experiences that helped with his healing process.
I agree that it is impossible for the key to have any healing power over Oskar because it is just a key. The key is special, however, in the way that it leads Oskar to his experiences. It does not heal Oskar in the least bit but what it led to did. It heals Oskar indirectly. Without it he would not have found the experiences that would heal him, therefore it is incredibly significant and extremely important to his healing process.
Did anyone else find it unusual that at the end of the novel Oskar seems to quit searching for his father? In fact, he acts as if he is still dead, still dead as a result of 9/11 even. His mom tells him straightforwardly that his father had “made it out of the building” (325). His father ‘invents’ his own death so Oskar won’t worry (325), which suggests it is quite possible he is alive. (Also, it shows how alike Oskar and his father are in their need to invent.) But, Oskar still considers that his father may be the falling man from the picture. Of course, there is clearly growth in his character considering he acknowledges the fact that “[w]hoever it was, it was somebody” (326). Why does he still consider that it was his father?
Oskar’s quest seems to end when most people’s who’d logically begin. Most people do not search for their father when they find out he is dead and then seem to come to the end of their search when he or she finds out that he is alive. It’s almost always the other way around.
It would seem that Oskar does sort of acknowledge that his father may not be dead when he tells his mom that it’s okay for her to “fall in love again” (324). It bothered him before because he didn’t feel that she was properly mourning her husband’s death. By revealing her secret that her husband left her rather than dying, Oskar’s mom justifies her desire to move on.
Perhaps Oskar realizes that the only place that he is aware of where his father still exists is in his memory. It would explain why he rewinds time. When every thing else is backwards, “dad” is still the same (an idea mentioned by Christy H). However, I still wonder why Oskar searches for his dad internally rather than externally. It may suggest that he is withdrawing into himself, which is why it is questionable whether or not the ending is hopeful.
I have an answer in response to Kenny N’s question about why Oskar still considers the falling man to be his father.
I believe that Oskar wants to believe it is his father because that would give his closure as to what happened to him. In the story Oskar wants to know how he died and that provides a definite answer because it’s there, it’s solid, it’s a clear picture in front of him. By convincing himself that the man is his father he is putting his vivid imagination to rest. He constantly is imagining the different ends his father could have met and since there were no pictures of what was going on inside the building the outside is all he has to work off of. He even says, “’I want to stop inventing. If I could know how he died, exactly how he died, I wouldn’t have to invent him dying inside an elevator that was stuck between two floors, which happened to some people, and I wouldn’t have to imagine him trying to crawl down the outside of the building…” (257). I believe that Oskar considers the falling man to be his father for that exact reason: he wants to stop inventing.
In a recent post Christy H W talked about the last sentence of the book and said, "because of his father's death, Oskar is no longer “safe”." I agree with this statement, however, I disagree with how not being safe is being looked upon as a bad thing. I believe in Oskar's case being safe has turned out to be a good thing. A very good thing. By being led outside his comfort zone Oskar has conquered many of his fears, such as going higher then nine stories in the Empire State Building and riding in the subways and busses. On page 244 Oskar almost gives up because of his fears; "I told him I felt like I couldn't do it. I told him it was the thing that I was most afraid of. He said he could understand why. I told him I would wait for him in the lobby, and he said, 'Fine.' 'OK, OK' I said, "I'll go.'" It is here that we realize without coming out of his shell and without going to meet new people and gain from their advice we would still have the outrageously paranoid Oskar who would not have risked so much for so little.
Throughout the novel it has come to my attention that with all of his exploring and "adventures," Oskar has learned (although probably unconsciously) that fear is a roadblock one must overcome to truly enjoy life. As his grandmother says, "It's always necessary" (314). This is advice that Oskar seems to live by, whether he knows it or not, and causes him to go to the lengths he goes to and do all the things so many people have never been able to do. Going outside of your comfort zone may feel intimidating but if you do not one will end up like Oskar's grandma and have no great stories or experiences to inspire others with.
Also, since I am somewhat on the topic of life I think it is incredibly ironic and interesting how this book about death, filled with death, is really about life. Because it is not really death that matters, it is life and the way it is lived that really counts. This is said by Oskar's grandfather and Anna, "Life is scarier than death" (322). As Oskar learns, one must overcome the fears in life to truly be able to enjoy it. He learns that you never know when something is going to happen, so treat everyday like it's your last and forgive and share and don't hold back. The best example of this is after Mr. Black's death, "I wish I had known that I wasn't going to see Mr. Black again when we shook hands that afternoon. I wouldn't have let go. But I didn't know, just like I didn't know it was going to be the last time Dad would ever tuck me in, because you never know" (286).
I disagree with Garrett E, I think that the idea of the key is significant to Oskar because that is what kept him close to his father. I think that the reason why he didn’t want to see what was in the box was because Oskar realized that the key wasn’t connected to his father the way he wanted it to be. He liked the idea of a key leading to his father. But they key itself, is not as important to him. I also do believe that the key helped him heal. It brought him closer to his father. This quest with the key is something Oskar will never forget. Therefore he will never forget his father, it only reminds him more of his father, making Oskar closer to him.
I disagree with Christy H, I believe that Oskar wants to believe that the fallen man is his father. I do not think that Oskar thinks the fallen man is his father. Oskar knows that his dad died talking on the phone, so how is it possible that he jumped. Oskar knows that the fallen man is not his father, although he gets past that fact and wants him to be his father. It is just something to let Oskar’s inventing stop. It is his way of keeping peace within himself.
I agree with Demitra saying that Oskar wanted the key to be more connected with the box than it ever was. I also think that Oskar is realistic enough to see that, but he is still just a 9 year old kid and needed it to be more connected.
i disagree with demitra about the falling guy. i don't think Oskar wants the falling man to be his father because everyone would see his father and he and his father had a special connection. He would just want that to stay between them.
There has been a very interesting discussion of whether or not Oskar believes the falling guy is his father. Christy says he wants closure (i.e. visual representation of what happened), while Demitra suggests this is Oskar's way of keeping peace with himself, but Connor says the photo would betray the special connection Oskar has with his father. Demitra's suggestion seems the most plausible, as throughout the book Oskar invents things he knows are lies to get him through. It is true that Oskar wants closure, but he really wants a false sense of closure, not the hard reality he knows - that he cannot imagine and see his father ever again. Connor's suggestion that the photo would make the connection with his father less special is implausible because he knows the photo is not really of his father and thus not everyone is seeing his father. The reversed photo is just one of Oskar's ways of dealing with the emotions he has about his father. Nothing more, nothing less.
And again I am in Friesen's class. Sorry for the mix up.
Post a Comment