Selah Saterstrom’s Pink Institution is very provocative in its ability to test various literary boundaries. The most obvious of these boundaries is pure structure. Saterstrom experiments with several different styles in each chapter which forces the reader to challenge their idea of what is actually entailed in a “book” or “novel.” The class discussion began to shift towards this but never had the opportunity to fully address many of the issues that are encompassed within this challenge. My main concern can be summed up as this: How effective is a challenge of this nature and what were Saterstrom’s main objectives in using these different structures?
In terms of the efficacy of the unique narrative structure, a lot needs to be addressed. Has she gone too far with her challenge? It seems that there was a good mix of people who enjoyed this new type of novel and those that had difficulty following it. Within this “novel,” there are definitely several powerful messages surrounding Southern culture and family history. She definitely manages to convey these ideas in the guise of incomplete sentences, seemingly random spaces, and pictures through the book. The issue becomes whether or not people choose to internalize the issues she brings forward or if they are too put off by the structure to truly feel impacted. Saterstrom had to expect to lose a certain amount of readers by breaking literary tradition but it is an interesting to consider whether she is losing more than she would expect. This brings us back to the idea of identifying what her objectives were in writing this type of novel.
Aside from considering what size audience Saterstrom was attempting to reach with this structure, it is important to try to discern what else she might have been trying to achieve in the context of the story. The short vignettes that she utilizes create an effect of reading someone’s memories. This was also touched upon in class but merits further expansion. This idea of memories is furthered by the titles given to them in the second part of the book. For instance, “Spiderland” is a childhood name for a place that she uses to label the short story about. The stories tend to cover particular events then simply cut off, much like memories. The before and after of each story do not matter. It is the actual event that is told that is impactful on the storyteller’s life. The reader does not feel obligated to connect all of the stories she tells. This is simply one explanation for one type of structure. Do the other styles tie in to this or do they have a different purpose? Saterstrom has definitely created a story that should be easily discussed due to its uniqueness so it will be interesting to hear people’s opinions about some of the questions that have been posed.
Firsty, as I said in class, this was definitely
ReplyDeletemy favorite book we have read thus far in class.
I feel like the emotional impact of the content definitely outweighs any difficulty in approaching the narrative style. As you said, I think that the short "chapters" that abruptly end are effectively portrayed memories. I feel that the style that these are written in gets this idea across very very well.
Besides just the short chapter segments, I feel that the initial, center-justified portion that gave a lot of people trouble is also based around the concept of memory retrieval. Just as in the vignettes, these accounts are short and abrupt.
Though in this section they are fragmented and even seem to contain gaps. i think that this was done to further emphasize the "recalling the past" idea within the book. whether this is through the recollection of bits and pieces of old family history, the more concrete but still flashbulb-like memories of your childhood, or through the overall recollection of a long-held concept of turmoil within some southern areas and the people that inhabit them.
I do feel that the structure of the book is intellectually stimulating and very different, but I do feel that it looses readers because of the added effort it takes to comprehend what is going on. I understand now, after class discussions and further research, what Saterstrom was doing with her writing structure, but upon my initial reading I was lost. I had to reread sections several times and even that, at times, wasn't enough to help me grasp the message of the section. I found Section three to be the most troubling of the five. For me, that section seemed completely bizarre. I actually had to ask my group members what was going on to even begin to know how to interpret it. So, while I do appreciate what Saterstrom was trying to do, I feel that if she was trying to reach a relatively large audience of readers, she failed.
ReplyDeleteAs the opening post mentioned, the structure is phenomenally different and unique compared to a normally structured novel. Although, hard to follow, it is clear that the author wanted to create an effect that would have been missed by writing a regularly structured novel (or atleast she feels so). Though, it does raise concerns about losing readers who would not understand such writing, or simply would not be bothered to reach through the words and figure out the messages. As someone mentioned in class, it is not a book that most people would pick up at the store after going through the first few pages. Most of us would probably never hear of the book had it not been for the class. It is a pure trade-off between maybe getting more readers, or being more effective in reflecting the author’s work and story. As a business person, you would expect someone to go through a style that would bring you more revenue and readers, though most writers and authors, concerned more about their style and portrayal of their message (like Selah Saterstrom), would choose their personalized structure.
ReplyDeleteTimothy, I agree with the fact that Selah Saterstrom's structure is unique and sometimes confusing. I feel that there is a fine line between having a creative structure and losing your readers. Although, it does seem that Saterstrom utilizes her form of structuring the novel to portray, as others have said, flashbulb memories. For myself, this had a large emotional effect. By doing so, I felt more engaged in this novel than I have for any book we have read thus far. From a psychology background, flashbulb memories are emotionally triggering. In my opinion, the broken sentence structure and confusion represents the narrators cloudy memories. Also, the broken sentences could also be a result of the memories being too emotional for her to continue remembering.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rahul and other classmates in saying that this would probably not be a book that I would actively seek out in a bookstore. If it were not for the class readings, I would not have been exposed to such unique structure. Also, I am in agreement with Rahul about the marketing factor of the book. It seems that the authors would target there style toward a more marketable liking, but after thinking about it from another standpoint, I feel that each authors personal style is a marketing tool in itself. For example, I really enjoyed the style and I am now more likely to read another that is similar. Overall, this is my favorite book that we have read so far.
This week’s novel did not exactly hit the nail on the head, for me, as an enjoyable read. As it was questioned in class many times, how far can an author go before losing her readers, and for me this is a perfect example. It is not that I did not enjoy the stories, or see the connection to the southern ways of life, but the fragmented sentences at the beginning of the novel and dispersed throughout were extremely irritating.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy the shortened “chapters” with the titles giving some brief description of the paragraph ahead. I felt as though Saterstrom was able to convey an immense amount of emotion in five or six lines compared the other novels we have read that were completely devoid of emotion. The story where the little girl places the pink eraser and puts into her mouth, certain that it is God, is filled with such vivid description. I do give her credit for being able to put so much description into a mouth filled with an eraser, whereas other authors, such as Ishiguro, left their novels completely empty of descriptions.
I agree with a lot of what has been said about the structure of the book, in terms of how it would most likely not appeal to the average, or maybe even the slightly more motivated than average reader. I myself really enjoy reading, it is something I do for fun etc. but I am pretty sure that had I been given this book without any grades to be concerned over, unless it came incredibly highly recommended I would have given up relatively quickly.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, especailly after discussing the book in class, I have really built up an appreciation for the style, especially as I feel the prose seemed to add an extra layer to the authenticity of the story, its style, and the emotions it conveys. I think that while it may have been possible to achieve a similar effect in a more traditional manner, the unique style really adds something the memory like quality of the story being told. I guess the bottom line is that it is just a shame that the book is not likely to reach a wider audience, as its hook may come a bit too late for most.
As others have said, this book is definitely not one that I would seek out, and even if I found it I would most likely not choose to read it after skimming the first few pages. With regards to a business versus artistic approach- I could definitely see the business side of wanting to make this a more marketable book, but I also feel that the overarching themes and the dramatic elements of the book would be somewhat lost if the narrative style had been changed to target a larger audience.
ReplyDeletePersonally, this book was not my favorite we have read so far at all. While I can appreciate the book, with its themes and very unique style, it simply did not resonate with me. Even being from the south and really enjoying southern tradition, I did not feel a deep connection with the book- I cannot help but think that this is due to its very drastic structure. It is understandable and commendable that Saterstrom approaches narrating as if she is speaking about broken memories, and part of why I did not enjoy this may have simply been personal preference of a more traditional style. While I feel that the structure is semi-reminiscent of Faulkner, I do not feel that the overall effect was as successful as a book such as The Sound and the Fury.
With that being said, I do have to give credit to Saterstrom's voice in the novel. The matter-of-fact tone that she takes when telling very visceral and controversial stories seems to imply the numbness that the narrator feels after so many traumatic events. This type of narrative voice reminded me somewhat of the narrator in Diaz's Drown- after experiencing so much, the narrator seems to have shut herself off from her emotions.
Overall, while the book did not really appeal to me, I was able to appreciate it and I was glad to be exposed to Saterstrom's very different approach to storytelling.
Tim and everyone, I think that one question this kind of text demands is, simply: does what Saterstrom is trying to accomplish in this text in fact *demand* an unconventional structure? What would be lost or gained by making the narrative more conventional or just more intelligible? Your insights are extremely valuable on this.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely not easy to answer whether or not this text needs its structure. Personally, I would say that its basic gist of horrible family tales could still be told through a more conventional style. Saterstrom could have created a typical narrative format in which this character says this and that character does that, where everything is explained in a way in which the readers can fully understand what is going on. And if Saterstrom had done this, more of the class probably would have said they liked this book, because it would have been similar to the other books that we have read and enjoyed. I don't think this is a bad thing--I think it is just easier for us to initially enjoy what we are already accustomed to. But when I truly think about if I liked this book or not, I definitely did. And I don't think I actually would have liked it had the style not been the way it is. I think Saterstrom wanted her readers to be a little confused and lost. I think she wanted us to not quite know what was going on the whole time, or who was doing what. I think she wanted us to realize that this event or this action was not just being experienced by one character--it was happening to many people throughout the south. I think she wanted us to realize that these events are timeless and can happen to anyone.
ReplyDelete