Erdrich allowed us a unique window into so many characters lives. Using unusual vocabulary, she painted some really cool scenes in my head and I loved the way she found to describe really deep personal feelings, things we might never even think to put into words but feel deeply, nonetheless.
But this novel differs from most in that it focused on so many personalities rather than one or two characters and their thoughts, lives, etc. She brings so many people into the story, allows us to peek into an individual's mind and emotions for a chapter or two and then that’s it, onto the next. Were you interested or frustrated by her scattered narrative approach?
I think this also relates to the issue Gretch raised in Part 1, about Erdrich's introduction of Fidelis in the beginning but then her apparent abandonment of him? Why do we never get to return to his thoughts? (What did he think about marrying Delphine? about the loss of his sons? about his choice to go to America?)
Lastly, I felt that Erdrich could have developed so much more to do with the singing club (or maybe that was just my perception since it was the book title) but she doesn’t. Why?
What is Erdrich trying to get us to see in writing how she did?
What is the central focus of the novel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maybe the point is to not have a central focus, but I have felt frustrated with this precise piece since finishing the book.
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps she doesn't want us to feel completion or tied to any main character. I do think Delphine was the main character, but I think she was even more like a supporting character to the novel. This drove me insane by the end of it.
I know I said I liked her writing style, and I still do think she has wonderful ways of phrasing things. Almost like gilding her words and making us really look to see all the details. I love that! But I think her storytelling skills may be lacking. Or something. I'm still frustrated by all the unknowns!
Katy, I don't think you're wrong in wondering more about the Singing Club. It's the title of the book. She should have developed it more.
Something else I am wondering: Did anyone else feel like the love Fidelis and Delphine had for each other was blown apart? There are references to their relationship which make me think that they were passionately crazy about each other, just very reserved in showing it. I think Louise made the completely wrong move in downplaying their marriage. I think they had soooooo much more that was ignored.
I really enjoyed the author’s scattered narrative approach but (as said before) the ending was certainly lacking. Why would she bother to show us that Delphine was the daughter of her daughter-in-law’s mother? Because of the irony? Or because her need for a mother-figure (or maybe just female relationship at this point) was fulfilled in her daughter-in-law? Did Erdrich develop the relationship (such as she did) between Delphine and her daughter-in-law just to show that Eva’s caring had passed down to Delphine and would be in turn passed on again? Or that the family would go on despite Fidelis’ (and Franz’s and Emil’s) deaths?
ReplyDeleteAnd can you tell I don’t have the book in front of me and can’t remember the daughter-in-law’s name?!
Perhaps that is the point. No central focus. Maybe in telling so many different stories and not tying them up (giving us the ending) she is trying to tell us something about life. As her character Eva says, life continues on without you. You are only a small piece of something much bigger. Maybe she really wanted to reinforce the point that lives move on, people enter and exit our lives and we don't always get to know what happens to them in the end?!
ReplyDeleteCan we ask the author to join our little group here so she could answer all these wonderful questions we have? Haha...I wish I knew the answers!
I think the scattered approach bothered me cause I found it confusing to find out who I was reading about it when I started each chapter.
ReplyDeleteThe central point? Well I wasn't sure there was one at all to be blunt other than the tale of a changing immigrant American family as they try to hold onto the so-called American dream. I think the lack of a clear focus made the novel very unenjoybale for me as a reader and why it took me so bloody long to read it.
Now I liked the bit about finding Delphine's mom again as it solidified her identity that much more and it felt like a lot of the story was focused around her finding her identity.
Some of my favorite books & movies... stories, I guess contain this "scattered narrative approach" that we're discussing. I really love when characters lives intertwine in ways that surprise the reader. The details that Erdrich unveiled at the end about Step-and-a-half and Mazarine kind of made the book for me!
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think that Erdrich wasn't really sure what type of a story she wanted to write. Particularly the entire plot line surrounding Clarisse. It simply didn't seem to fit the rest of the book. Nor did it have a point. I think that may be why we are all scratching our heads about a central plot... Erdrich couldn't really make up her mind WHAT she wanted to say, or which characters she wanted to develop.
I did find comfort in the fact that Delphine finally settled into the life of a mother and wife, although her marriage truly was tragic. I wonder why Erdrich didn't allow Fidelis and Delphine to find in each other the passionate marriage they both wanted? It seemed that she was setting their relationship up to be full and loving before they married.