The book "Take One Candle, Light A Room" was full of unexpected elements. The process of Antoine doing her job and constantly worrying about Victor's life cam with crime, unexpected disasters and encounters with different people. Probably the most shocking thing about this book is that the "n" word was constantly popping up. (I would never dare to use this word in my pieces.)
What I saw in the entire book was that Susan Straight had through understanding of the cultures she was writing about. Sari told the class that she calls herself "black woman trapped in white woman's body." I could truly see that here and there--her understanding of New Orleans culture, use of slangs and descriptions of people all prove this. When a writer must write something about it, sufficient amount of knowledge is always required, if they do not want to publish something with plentiful of error about the subject matter and be laughed at by the readers or the experts.
The characters seem plain, but the burdens they possess are strong. Antoine is haunted by her past constantly and Victor is lost in his path. Glorette's death could be the starting point, which means the past five years were nightmares for both of them. Having someone's death as a trigger for menacing life always works, and in this book, it really works.
Overall, the book really matches the title: Antoine is searching for a candlelight that will light up her life. The process, of course, is hard, but it is worth trying.
Hae-Lim Lee
Sunday, May 13, 2012
White Woman, Black Characters
The first thing that strikes me about Susan Straight's Take One Candle Light a Room: A Novel is that it's about (in part) Southern Californians. That in itself is nothing odd or unusual, but the fact that the people, lives, and locations she chooses to write about are not the typical–that's how this fact stands out. While I do read FX Antoine–the successful, exotic-looking, independent writer who lives in an impressive flat in LA when she's not touring exotic and little-known towns and attractions in other countries–as a too-ideal, possible fantasy of Straight's, the majority of characters in Take One Candle defy Hollywood's movie and magazine image of Southern Californians. We don't see Barbie and Ken, or sunglasses-bearing blondes cruising, top down, under rows of palms. No, instead we get poverty, slang, drugs, prostitution, and unglamorous violence.
I, a NorCal native, get to see a SoCal I'm largely unfamiliar with. I enjoy it.
Another surprising element to this novel, or to Straight, is the fact that she's a white woman. No, I don't think I'm racist, but how did a Californian white woman grow to experience and know the cultures, languages, people, and events that she writes about? I don't doubt that she writes what she knows, to an extent. We know, too, that she lives in Riverside, the city she was born in. She even claims to be able to see the hospital she was born in from her kitchen window. Location, I understand, but the culture she writes is fascinating, mostly because it is from an unexpected source. Part of that can be answered, no doubt, in some of the essays she's written on race. While I haven't read them, I came across them as I was researching her. Two of the ones she's published are titled, "Skin Deep: Black Women & White Women Write About Race" and "Race: An Anthology in the First Person." I may look for a copy of these before Straight comes and reads at school.
Take One Candle's plot was fantastic–perhaps too fantastic for me. There was a rich backstory, an exciting journey, and plenty of action.
There backstory contained a healthy degree of mystery and pain. It was romantic–to an extent–as revealed by FX Antoine, but we (the readers as well as FX) soon find out that all may not be as previously thought. While the late-book discovery that FX's ancestors may not be who she always thought they were is a big deal, I honestly cared very little about it.
The locations were many and quite varied, ranging from Europe to California's high desert. While this was interesting, much of it was pointless. All of FX's travels could have been absent from the story and it still would have functioned well. The journey FX and her father took to New Orleans was a major factor in the story. I'll admit that when I first cracked the book, I had no idea we would end up in Louisiana. As for the climax, "Katrina," we all expected it to be a big deal. But we all knew what happened, so we had that heads-up. Setting might have been my favorite element of the story. Even though it was a tad raw, it wasn't overly so. Those of you who read Let the Great World Spin got some more-than-typical grittiness. She captured these settings, fictional or not, well, and the world she built in LA had an almost film noir aura to it at times.
As for the action in the novel, most of it was indirectly seen. We didn't see Victor get shot, nor were we in the moment when FX's father killed Mr. McQuine. We still had plenty of action despite that, but I appreciate Straight not using the cheap tricks of gunfire and car chases to drive her novel. Instead, it was the drama and heavy situations that made us turn the pages. Good move, Straight.
Another thing I found different in this novel was the attention paid to banal details. In the books I usually read, there tends to be a reason we read what the protagonist is putting on, or why he or she is doing his or her hair a certain way. In this novel, we get it and it bugged me that there was no purpose. FX braids her hair? So, what? She changed into a white tank top originally bought for one of the guys? Cool. I don't want to generalize people, but perhaps since I'm a guy, I didn't care for these constant, pointless details.
I've lambasted enough. If you've read this far, you may think I hate the novel. I don't. I enjoyed it, actually. I'm glad we read something a bit easier for class. Sometimes assigned reading, although it may be leisure reading otherwise, tastes a bit like homework. This one was fun to read, and it makes me look forward to Straight's visit.
The vernacular used in the novel required a second or even third pass, sometimes, but I appreciate the authenticity of it. The story benefitted greatly from the true-to-life dialogue. The characters would have been so different in my mind if they were written "more better."
The depth to her story was good, too. I think I've read somewhere that some of her other novels might involve similar families or settings? Whether or not this is true, I could see the authentic backgrounds and histories in the people she created (or recreated).
The story, to me, was reminiscent of thrillers I've read, but it was performed with more class. It wasn't a story I was necessarily enveloped in, but I had fun with it, nonetheless. I wonder if Straight has been to New Orleans? What are her other ties to that place?
My last praise for Take One Candle is a fact I've mentioned before: Straight is white, writing about blacks. On the surface, this may not be credible, but she pulls it off successfully. This, more than anything, is encouraging. It's possible for me to produce something that catches people off guard, but in a way that works.
-Alexander Hirata
Take One Candle
Susan Straight has beautiful prose. I will say that first because it is true and I liked how natural and unique her descriptions were because they brought color to the story. Her story was also very complex (which I always like to see in a book) but no loose ends were left over. I don't mind loose ends, but it's also nice to see an author who has thought through every aspect of a story.
However, Straight's novel was very difficult to read. When I first began reading it, I first noticed the language but not soon after I realized I was constantly floating around between time and space because I had no idea where/when I was in the story. The first chapter is a family tree and though I know this is to set the premise and context of Fantine's past, it was hard to keep track of later on. Eventually I gave up and just went along for the ride alongside Fantine and let her tell me who was related to who and if I couldn't remember later, it didn't matter because it was hard enough to keep track of everyone's names. At the end of the book, I can only say that Victor was Glorette's son.
Normally, I love a book with a lot of background story, it gives it life and context and makes it feel more real, but it felt as though Straight went a little too far with it, or at least Fantine did. Fantine's obsession with the past was the reason I was always confused about the when. She often (and very naturally) slips into her memories and memories of memories. The fact that Straight can weave this in before we even notice it is 20 years prior shows her talent as a writer, but made the reading experience full of questions and confusion. Which made the ending even harder to understand because it's so... succinct. Everything was solved suddenly with no loose ends, it was a bit jarring after all the problems and loose ends Fantine had been struggling with all along.
Nevertheless, I admire Straight's ability to write about a culture/race that is not her own and have it be so compelling and convincing. Her novel is a good one, if only hard to read and probably not meant for the casual reader looking for something they can read for ten or twenty minutes at a time every so often. I tried to read the book this way, taking maybe 30 minutes to an hour at at time to chisel away at it, but I always had to back track to remember where Fantine is or if Fantine is even the subject at that point in the story.
Justyne Marin
However, Straight's novel was very difficult to read. When I first began reading it, I first noticed the language but not soon after I realized I was constantly floating around between time and space because I had no idea where/when I was in the story. The first chapter is a family tree and though I know this is to set the premise and context of Fantine's past, it was hard to keep track of later on. Eventually I gave up and just went along for the ride alongside Fantine and let her tell me who was related to who and if I couldn't remember later, it didn't matter because it was hard enough to keep track of everyone's names. At the end of the book, I can only say that Victor was Glorette's son.
Normally, I love a book with a lot of background story, it gives it life and context and makes it feel more real, but it felt as though Straight went a little too far with it, or at least Fantine did. Fantine's obsession with the past was the reason I was always confused about the when. She often (and very naturally) slips into her memories and memories of memories. The fact that Straight can weave this in before we even notice it is 20 years prior shows her talent as a writer, but made the reading experience full of questions and confusion. Which made the ending even harder to understand because it's so... succinct. Everything was solved suddenly with no loose ends, it was a bit jarring after all the problems and loose ends Fantine had been struggling with all along.
Nevertheless, I admire Straight's ability to write about a culture/race that is not her own and have it be so compelling and convincing. Her novel is a good one, if only hard to read and probably not meant for the casual reader looking for something they can read for ten or twenty minutes at a time every so often. I tried to read the book this way, taking maybe 30 minutes to an hour at at time to chisel away at it, but I always had to back track to remember where Fantine is or if Fantine is even the subject at that point in the story.
Justyne Marin
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Take 1 Candle Light a Room: Fat Purple Icicles, Characters, and Family
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
Friday, May 11, 2012
Take One Candle, Light A Room
I had mixed feelings about the book "Take a Candle Light a Room." The first chapter drew me in. Straight has beautiful lines that I appreciated the entire time I read the book. However, the many characters created confusion as I continued reading. Some names were similar and for some reason, I had a hard time keeping track of everyone. The main person/character that confused me was Moinette Antonie and Fatine's other ancestors. I wrote down a list, a family tree which made sense but then later in the book, Straight referred to the characters as something other than I wrote down. So, I was confused. Also, we never truly met or got to know those characters, since they were ancestors. So it was even harder to remember each.
One aspect I did enjoy was that the language used in the dialogue brought another layer to the book. Although difficult to understand at times, seeing that I do not speak Louisiana French, I appreciated the honesty of the dialect. Another thing I liked was all of the beautiful descriptions of the places surrounding Fantine in the book. Her smilies and imagery work well to combat the other confusing aspects of the piece. When I was confused about something in the story line or the character presented, Straight placed a beautiful sentence before me. One I really liked was, "I walked past all the lovely buildings, the olive trees pruned like airborne poodles, the tiny rugs of lawn." (61) There were many more that allowed me to visualize the space around them even if the characters were muddy.
Altogether, I did like the ending of the story. Even though for most of the story, it felt like Mission Impossible, I was glad to see the conclusions Fantine came to about family, finally realizing the true importance. After reading about Straight's family and her love of the African American culture, it brought a different light while reading the book. She did a good job of becoming or interpreting someone of a difference race and culture, which I deeply admired.
Angela
One aspect I did enjoy was that the language used in the dialogue brought another layer to the book. Although difficult to understand at times, seeing that I do not speak Louisiana French, I appreciated the honesty of the dialect. Another thing I liked was all of the beautiful descriptions of the places surrounding Fantine in the book. Her smilies and imagery work well to combat the other confusing aspects of the piece. When I was confused about something in the story line or the character presented, Straight placed a beautiful sentence before me. One I really liked was, "I walked past all the lovely buildings, the olive trees pruned like airborne poodles, the tiny rugs of lawn." (61) There were many more that allowed me to visualize the space around them even if the characters were muddy.
Altogether, I did like the ending of the story. Even though for most of the story, it felt like Mission Impossible, I was glad to see the conclusions Fantine came to about family, finally realizing the true importance. After reading about Straight's family and her love of the African American culture, it brought a different light while reading the book. She did a good job of becoming or interpreting someone of a difference race and culture, which I deeply admired.
Angela
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Letters to Fantine
I commend Susan Straight for stepping so completely into the shoes of a black woman with a completely different culture than the typical white person's. She so immersed me into Fantine's voice that I forgot she'd written the book: Fantine wrote it! Therefore, it is to Fantine I wish to direct my critiques.
I did not enjoy the choppy sentences or the referrals back to previous (5-6 or more pages previous) parts of the book. They made me wrack my brain for the last time Fantine said something, and when I simply couldn't remember, I felt frustrated. Nor did I enjoy the Louisiana French aspect of the book. It could have been much clearer! The language is an important part of Fantine's life, and it captures the local color of the story, but it was not always clear to me what the characters (namely Enrique Antoine or Gustave Picard or Aunt Monie) were saying/indicating with their Louisiana French. I looked some of the words up on Google Translate, but some of the French-sounding words were unavailable because there is no language selection that says 'Louisiana French'.
Another hugely confusing aspect of the book was all the Moinette Antoine-Marie-Therese-Marie-Claire line of the story. I've read the book twice and I still am confused about who is who's relative and who got sold on the river and who had children and who those children were and how those children connect with Fantine, Victor or Glorette. Again, this is frustrating in a novel. Though Fantine seems to have some great descriptions of the different places and people around her, I find these descriptions and metaphorical statements fuzzy and sometimes nonsensical: I couldn't relate. I cannot picture a "vague, taupe person": I literally see a smudge. I like to be able to picture the people I meet in books, and I simply could not picture Fantine. I'm sure this contributes to Fantine's awareness that people think she could be "Italian, Brazilian, Mexican, Hawaiian, etc..." but to me, images of people I know flashed around in my mind and none stuck for Fantine. I still don't know what she looks like.
Even though Glorette was more beautiful, and "hammered gold and purple velvet eyes" sounds really nice and beautiful, I could not picture Glorette. I have problems when people are described as having purple eyes. I have never met anyone with purple eyes. Fantine's descriptions were very vague--I could only imagine a sliver of what she was talking about. I had to look up levees, bayous, cypress trees, etc. in order to know what those things look like. I know she described them, but I feel that she could have described them a little better.
I have to say that I thought this story was going a whole different way when I read the first chapter: there was virtually nothing about those five women after that, and I think just that story would have been really interesting (escape to California, their lives once they got there, Gustave and Enrique joining them and marrying them, building the new Sarrat)--perhaps more interesting than the book itself. I liked Victor's character, but I felt that he crossed himself sometimes. He didn't seem like someone who would just ride with gangsters for no reason: how did he start riding with them? Why? When did he begin college? When did he graduate from high school? If he is 22, shouldn't he have finished a 4 year program, not a 2-year? WHat did he two in the two years before or after high school when he wasn't in college? Why, exactly, did Mando shoot him? I understand the reason was petty, but the reasons seemed wishy-washy and all over the place.
I should probably stop talking about the things I did not like. I thought the story was powerful and resonant in modern culture, where everyone (okay, not everyone, but a lot of young people) wants to be the 'cool' gangster (whatever 'race' of gangster they feel they fit in) type with their pants hanging off their asses and and their spiky hair and blah blah blah. I wish Victor's valiant resilience had been brought out more. I have a lot of questions. Maybe I will ask Susan Straight, but I will probably be too nervous. I'd like to read another of her books, because I've heard this one is different from the others in some ways, probably because Fantine "wrote it." I do think Fantine did great at narrating the voices of her family members (aside from the French), and the ways they acted: quiet, hardworking, etc.
I have such mixed thoughts about this book. It wasn't boring, though it did get long while Fantine was searching for Victor. Just find him already! Was my glaring thought in those chapters. And the ending wrapped itself up a little too neatly. How did Jazen die in Katrina but Tony was perfectly fine? Anyway. I will stop now. ;)
Laura Strawn Ojeda
I did not enjoy the choppy sentences or the referrals back to previous (5-6 or more pages previous) parts of the book. They made me wrack my brain for the last time Fantine said something, and when I simply couldn't remember, I felt frustrated. Nor did I enjoy the Louisiana French aspect of the book. It could have been much clearer! The language is an important part of Fantine's life, and it captures the local color of the story, but it was not always clear to me what the characters (namely Enrique Antoine or Gustave Picard or Aunt Monie) were saying/indicating with their Louisiana French. I looked some of the words up on Google Translate, but some of the French-sounding words were unavailable because there is no language selection that says 'Louisiana French'.
Another hugely confusing aspect of the book was all the Moinette Antoine-Marie-Therese-Marie-Claire line of the story. I've read the book twice and I still am confused about who is who's relative and who got sold on the river and who had children and who those children were and how those children connect with Fantine, Victor or Glorette. Again, this is frustrating in a novel. Though Fantine seems to have some great descriptions of the different places and people around her, I find these descriptions and metaphorical statements fuzzy and sometimes nonsensical: I couldn't relate. I cannot picture a "vague, taupe person": I literally see a smudge. I like to be able to picture the people I meet in books, and I simply could not picture Fantine. I'm sure this contributes to Fantine's awareness that people think she could be "Italian, Brazilian, Mexican, Hawaiian, etc..." but to me, images of people I know flashed around in my mind and none stuck for Fantine. I still don't know what she looks like.
Even though Glorette was more beautiful, and "hammered gold and purple velvet eyes" sounds really nice and beautiful, I could not picture Glorette. I have problems when people are described as having purple eyes. I have never met anyone with purple eyes. Fantine's descriptions were very vague--I could only imagine a sliver of what she was talking about. I had to look up levees, bayous, cypress trees, etc. in order to know what those things look like. I know she described them, but I feel that she could have described them a little better.
I have to say that I thought this story was going a whole different way when I read the first chapter: there was virtually nothing about those five women after that, and I think just that story would have been really interesting (escape to California, their lives once they got there, Gustave and Enrique joining them and marrying them, building the new Sarrat)--perhaps more interesting than the book itself. I liked Victor's character, but I felt that he crossed himself sometimes. He didn't seem like someone who would just ride with gangsters for no reason: how did he start riding with them? Why? When did he begin college? When did he graduate from high school? If he is 22, shouldn't he have finished a 4 year program, not a 2-year? WHat did he two in the two years before or after high school when he wasn't in college? Why, exactly, did Mando shoot him? I understand the reason was petty, but the reasons seemed wishy-washy and all over the place.
I should probably stop talking about the things I did not like. I thought the story was powerful and resonant in modern culture, where everyone (okay, not everyone, but a lot of young people) wants to be the 'cool' gangster (whatever 'race' of gangster they feel they fit in) type with their pants hanging off their asses and and their spiky hair and blah blah blah. I wish Victor's valiant resilience had been brought out more. I have a lot of questions. Maybe I will ask Susan Straight, but I will probably be too nervous. I'd like to read another of her books, because I've heard this one is different from the others in some ways, probably because Fantine "wrote it." I do think Fantine did great at narrating the voices of her family members (aside from the French), and the ways they acted: quiet, hardworking, etc.
I have such mixed thoughts about this book. It wasn't boring, though it did get long while Fantine was searching for Victor. Just find him already! Was my glaring thought in those chapters. And the ending wrapped itself up a little too neatly. How did Jazen die in Katrina but Tony was perfectly fine? Anyway. I will stop now. ;)
Laura Strawn Ojeda
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Cairo
This was a story about connecting to people and realizing that we are all one human experience. The language is engaging. The small details that put you in the story such as the stiff yellow ticket. If you've ever traveled you can relate having to keep track of things like tickets. They are treasured pieces of paper and it connects an emotional attachment. She fills us in with phrases like, "All is gravity and physicality. You get a sense of how she feels being bodied around by all the other people in the train. Great writing.
Sheldon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)