At first, I found the writing style very confusing because I had trouble differentiating between the narrator’s thoughts, reminiscing, or current events. Eventually I was able to figure it out and enjoy the narrative. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. I would re-read so many lines and not because I was confused anymore, but because I was in love with Straight’s word choices. Lines like “It must have been spring, because the side of the barn was covered in wisteria like fat purple icicles…” (119). I never would have thought to describe a plant like that and I literally stopped and tried to visualize the flowers hanging off the barn like fat icicles. As Laura pointed out in her post, Straight’s descriptions are not always the most clear and easy to visualize, but I appreciated the author’s fresh take on the world anyway. I was ok with not knowing exactly what something looked like, I knew Fantine knew what it looked like and I chose to just go along with whatever she said.
I loved the idea of Fantine’s job as a travel writer (my dream job!), but the opening chapters mislead me because that’s what I thought the whole novel was going to be about. As Professor Fordham has taught us, the opening chapter of a book or paragraph in an article establishes a contract with the reader. The first chapter is about Fantine’s mom and their whole history, which is important background information, but not necessarily the strongest opening to a book about searching for Victor. Even in the second chapter, Fantine has just gotten back from a trip and is attending a book launch when she gets a phone call from Cerise back home about Glorette’s 5 year death memorial, but the rest of the novel is not really about either FX’s job nor the memorial. Both are largely relevant background and sub-plot, the main plot focuses on Victor, who we only meet in a brief phone call.
Though Victor was one of the main characters, he was the most confusing to me. He was under unique, strenuous circumstances, which may have affected his reasoning, but his personality seemed muddy. Victor came off as very static. I didn’t see much growth or change occur. Opportunities changed-like Fantine taking full responsibility for him-but he remained the same, interested in education-even giving himself the rapper name ‘DJ Scholaptitude’ and deciding to use the ruby bracelet as money for tuition. He shows some resentment toward Fantine while she is chasing him, but in the end he depends on her to save his life, same as at the beginning.
Alfonso was my favorite character because he was the most dynamic. He’s a prime example of a bright young mind going to waste because a life of crime was the easiest or “only” path he saw for his life. By the end, Alfonso begins to turn his life around; turning on head bad guy Jazen, admitting long kept information about Glorette’s murder, and turning himself in, in New Orleans, for his own safety. We don’t see a magical change overnight, which I appreciate for being realistic, but the reader can assume his growth will only continue- if not into education, than to a legitimate job for his family’s sake.
As our essay question prompted, place and family are enormous parts of the novel. The book is even broken down into chapters according to place; Sarrat, Weimar, etc. Dialect was another means of establishing place, with Fantine even changing her speech patterns according to where she was and who she was talking to; “’Where you stay now?’ I fell into my second language so easily, even as I could still see the carved wooden pew and white roses in Arthur Graves’s loft” (94). In my essay and now, I feel that family is the most integral part of the story. The entire plot revolves around Fantine finding her godson, Victor. Fantine’s father accompanies her and they (and the boys-Victor, Alfonso, and Jazen) depend on family along the way for food, information, and a place to stay. In the end, Fantine and Victor depend on Emile to save their lives. Family isn’t only reserved for blood relations, but members of the community and anyone with whom you form a bond strong enough to depend on them for anything. Fantine and Tony. Henri and Michelle Meraux. Victor and Fantine.
-Katie Huffman
The characters were sure full of life. Their struggles and responsibility drove the plot and the struggles they went through lit the message.
ReplyDeleteHae-Lim Lee
I agree that the novel was based on family, and that is one thing I liked about the book--the idea that one can have blood family that is not biological blood, and the love that binds all types of family together. I found Victor disappointing--I wanted more explanation on why he was so hard on Fantine. He seemed, in part of the book, to know that she was coming after him to find him (he gives her 'secret' cell phone messages about their location, which allows Fantine and her father to turn around and head the right way--toward Louisiana) but later he acts as though there is no way she would ever come. He is very wishy-washy and confusing, and if he'd been dynamic, I'd have loved him as a character!
ReplyDeleteLaura Strawn Ojeda
I agree on your comments about Victor. He was confusing! I felt at many times that he did seem very ungrateful. He seems to sway, as Laura said, with his opinions and what he says to Fantine. I wanted to love Victor, to understand him more. Unfortunately, it was difficult. One thing I would have loved to see were the essays or more poetry Victor wrote. I don't know how much that would have helped his character form, but I thought it would have been nice to integrate that in the story.
ReplyDeleteAngela