Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Nam Le's The Boat. I found that the presentation of the stories was very similar to that of The Pink Institution. Several of the stories in The Boat including "Love and Honor..." and "Hiroshima" begin with a straight forward style of a narrative and at some point the style of telling the story shifts to a inner train of thought much similar to some of the pieces that are from The Pink Institution. After noticing this, I began to ask my question "what are some of the consistent characteristics of contemporary literature?" and "what differentiates contemporary literature from other literature beside the time period in which each type was written?" A similar style of writing using the continuing thoughts of the narrator without a filter for what is relevant to the subject being discussed was also used in Drown. Perhaps, this style of writing is present in classical literature, but it seems it has been prevalent in the several works that we have examined.
After reading the first story in which the narrator is tentative about writing about his culture and background because he does not want to be one of those "ethnic writers," I thought of a quote from the film Orange County. The protagonist, Shaun, of the film thinks the only way that he can become a great writer is by leaving his dysfunctional family. A English professor at Stanford, says to Shaun, what if Twain had left Missouri or if Hawthorne left Massachusetts would they have produced masterpieces, who knows but their surroundings and background provided them with the experiences to create great works of literature. I feel that for the most part great fiction is based on the experiences of the writer if the author is Vietnamese then those experiences are going to somewhat reflect a Vietnamese upbringing and this can be said for most authors. However in a whole, The Boat exhibits an author that is able to write about other cultures besides his own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What do ya'll think the purpose of the story "Hiroshima" is? Of all of the stories, it seems to be the one that stands out as the most different. Just about the only similarity to other stories that I could think of was the stylistic approach of having the story end right at the climactic moment (a atomic bomb will do that!). Seriously though, everything about this story is different.
ReplyDeleteIt is the shortest story of all of them, which doesn't give us a chance to enjoy the character development present in all of the other stories. This story seems to be just a narrative of what life was like in Japan during WWII and an insight of Japanese citizen's mindset. What do you think?
To answer Chris's question about "what are some of the consistent characteristics of contemporary literature?", I agree that one of the characteristics is lack of filter, both in subject matter and in detail. Unlike past literature, contemporary writers address controversial issues of today and of the recent past, such as women's rights in the Middle East, very baldly. In The Boat, the various narrators of the stories give the reader a feeling of firsthand experience by holding nothing back. I found some of the stories, such as "Cartagena" and "Meeting Elise," painful to read because of the amount of detail. The scene where the gang beats up Zeno, and the doctor's examination, were very difficult to read about.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Caldwell's comment,I think that the point behind "Hiroshima" is the same as the point behind the rest of the stories-to tell about a defining moment or issue in a particular culture. The bomb dropping on Hiroshima was a huge moment in Japanese history--it marked the end of the empire in Japan, and then the US rebuilt Japan as a democracy.
I have a question for whoever else comments: what do you think makes Nam Le so believable when he writes from different perspectives about places all over the globe--Iran, Vietnam, Japan, America? Is he more believable in some stories than in others?
I agree with Vanessa about the difficulty to get through some of the stories such as "Meeting Elise" and "Cartagena". I feel that the amount of detail made the stories seem more real than others. For myself, the detail is what allowed me to connect to the characters and fell for them. Also, I believe that it is the detail oriented nature of Nam Le that allows his short stories to be so believable. In my opinion, Nam Le was more believable in some stories more than others such as the first story, second story, and Meeting Elise.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began Nam Le's book of short stories, I was not able to recognize that the stories were different, but that obviously came evident as the book moved forward, Some stories seemed like they did not belong such as Hiroshima, but they did follow the pattern that Nam Le was presenting (portraying important event and cutting the readers off at the climax or right after).
Overall, I enjoyed Nam Le's work.
I wanted to respond to the initial post in which the author makes the comment that the presentation of the stories in Saterstrom in similar to that of Nam Le's. I am going to go ahead and disagree with this statement. First of all, the structure immediately differentiates the two types of story telling. Saterstrom utilizes her novel's unique structure to help present her story and create the idea of moving through time. Her presentation is very straightforward and short. Rather than focus on details and emotions, she utilizes the shock value of each of her statements to keep the reader's attention.
ReplyDeleteNam Le on the other hand pays very close attention to detail. Most of his stories relied on detailed descriptions of emotional reactions, something that was absent from Saterstrom's narration. He also goes through great detail explaining events unlike the "matter-of-fact" like tone that Saterstrom utilizes.
Essentially, I do not necessarily see parallels in the narration and presentation of Saterstrom and Le's works. They parallel each other in other ways such as the prevalent theme of violence or their utilization of their native cultures but other than that I would hesitate to draw too many parallels.
I wanted to post a question about Nam Le's cut off at the climax of the stories. I enjoyed the stories and felt like I was able to really connect to the characters. I was a little disappointed after the first story did not really have a full conclusion. Then I noticed a pattern at the end of each story. Although I think this is an interesting approach, I felt a little sad that no story was really complete.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this lack of closure is something Le does with all of his stories. What do you all think the purpose this has in the collection as a whole. Also, do you think Le did this to mirror something in his own life? I was just a little confused about this and was hoping someone had some input.
I also thought the early cutoff of the stories was unusual. At first I was disappointed, but as I thought about it I began to change my opinion. The cliffhangers left me wondering, and really made me think more about the individual stories even after I had finished them. They became less of one story off the checklist because the reader is allowed to imagine his or her own personal idea on how the stories are supposed to end. I thought the cutoffs gave more personal meaning to the reader because of the room they allowed.
ReplyDeleteI liked this book very much. I do not normally like short stories very much, but I felt like he developed characters extremely well, and I connected with a lot of them. I can distinctly remember each different story as if it were its own separate book. My favorite was probably Halfhead Bay. I felt like it had a somewhat more optimistic ending because of the family bonding the fight allowed.
Chris, the answer to "what is contemporary literature" is, I feel, always changing--since it really is a matter of time period, the field is different every year. Some people would place the "contemporary" within ten years, or five, or one...but it's up for interpretation. But there are stylistic "habits" (so to speak) that are more contemporary, newer, more current--and this lack of filter that you bring up and Vanessa expands on here is an interesting way of describing one of these styles.
ReplyDelete