Meeting the character: Provide a tid bit to introduce the character of your book. Who's the character? What is he or she doing in America? How does the reader get to know the character initially?
After reading the first few sections of Roger Rosenblatt’s memoir "The Boy Detective" it was clear that the most important ideas in Roger's life are investigation, history, mystery and nostalgia. "The Boy Detective" constantly switches from moments from Roger's childhood, back to present day, so quickly you may miss the transition between lives. Roger talks about his walking expeditions of New York City, constantly looking for new mysteries to solve, or telling his readers an anecdote about this building, or that museum, anything really. But he’s not really “telling his readers” anything; rather he is having a conversation. He asks questions, “What do you think about that, pal?” Merely sitting in a coffee shop, sipping a warm cup of tea, telling stories from the good old days, or at least that’s how I imagine it. When I chose this book I was under the impression it was going to be a suspenseful intriguing memoir of Rosenblatt’s childhood adventures exploring the streets of the stereotypical American city (New York), or encounters with strangers, but don’t be fooled because it is entirely different. It is much more of a history book and a book of references. He will take a moment or a memory and string in all the books or movies it makes him think of, what happens in those books and movies, or the history of the building the memory happened, or he moves onto something completely different without finishing the original thought. In a way it seems disjointed and unrelated, yet still has an interesting flow and ease about it. He writes in short passages, a stream of consciousness, a moment or thought leading straight into another thought, leading him into another, you never know where the story will go next, although I do often find there is some sort of deep message or contemplative question to go along with each of the sections. Overall, I see a man trying to relive his childhood, a man now more experienced in life trying to revisit all the mysteries he wanted to solve as a boy detective. He wants to be like Edgar Allen Poe, writing the best detective stories, but be Sherlock Holmes at the same time trying to solve all the cases. A boy detective, looking for the solutions to life’s questions, but now a man with experience to come up with his own answers.
Ambramsky does not have one character specifically that he tells of throughout the book. Instead, he speaks of the the poverty stricken people of America as a whole, and then begins to break them down into sub groups. This book was written after volumes and volumes of research, so it becomes more factual than it is opinionated. This book was partially modeled after Michael Harrington's The Other America, which was published in 1962. This was a very influential book back in its time, and was said to be one of the possible reasons for Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty. Ambamsky mentions this fact multiple times throughout the beginning of the book, which leaves the reader thinking that his book is going to be the same in depth study of poverty as Harrington's. The first part of Ambramsky's book goes into great detail about poverty and who is affected by it. He takes people from all around America and shares their stories, sometimes in quotation, and sometimes narrating. Later in the book however, he chooses to look at the future, and tell the reader what he believes should be done about poverty. All in all, Ambramsky allows the reader to not just get to know one character, but a large group of people. I really appreciated this because it gave the reader many different perspectives on poverty in America, instead of twisting the idea through the story of one character. I really appreciate the objective tone in the book, because it allowed me to form my own thoughts and opinions without giving me a prescribed one. How did you feel about that in your book? Did you feel like your narrator was a reliable one? How did it change the way you read the rest of your book?
I don't feel like Rosenblatt really allowed the reader to get to know the characters in his book on a personal level, there were many times where it was difficult to connect with the characters because we didn't know the reasons behind their actions, it was so factual. Although, with that said, he did give the reader freedom to interpret what he was talking about in anyway they wanted to. He asked the reader a lot of questions, whether they were rhetorical questions for himself, or for the reader there were some thought provoking ideas, many relating to the meaning of life - which is a little deep for me and where I'm at in my life, but hey, they did make me think. It was hard to tell what he was talking about sometimes, he switched from dreams, to his imagination, to his childhood back to the present so quickly that you never really know where the stories were coming from. I think Rosenblatt was a reliable writer in that he never deceived or lied to the reader, but it was written in a way that you had to stop and go "Wait.. what was that?" The hardest part about reading the book fro me was seeing the connections between the stories, sometimes it was obvious and the led right into the next, but other times it was difficult to see the message or point in a passage.
Maybe the fact that he switched time frames in his book so quickly and seamlessly had some sort of other meaning... It seemed like time was clearly something that was very prevalent in the book. It sounds very interesting to have the author ask you questions as you go along as well... Did the questions that he asked somehow add to the passages right before or right after the questions? You know how sometimes at the beginning of a chapter in a book there will be a quote from somewhere that magically fits in with that chapter? Was that sort of what the questions were like in the book?
I find that very often, the structure of the piece has a lot to do with the meaning of it.
I definitely think the structure was significant to the story, but I just couldn't pick up its significance myself. It depended on the questions, there were definitely cases where he'd end a passage, and bring it back in the first line by asking a question that was related, as well as ending a passage with a question and answering it in the next passage, so it was used as a connecting step, but not consistently.
Here are some of the questions, they are much like the "If you're stuck on an island what three items would you bring with you" type questions, I'll open to a random page and see what there is --
After finishing a passage about explorers navigating the world the next passage begins "Here's a thought; If there were a place on earth hat no one had ever been, would you go there?" "Would you kill for money if you were assured of money, a great deal of money?" "I put it to my memoir students: In what do you believe if not in dreams? The pluperfection of experience? The so-called reality of your life?"
Huh, he's deep... those questions definitely have some sort of meaning. You don't just pop those in there to screw with the reader. Maybe those were things that he thought about frequently in his past, or maybe those questions all have their answers in random parts of the book.
The book, Open City opens up with someone who is wandering the city, and that person is narrating it. He is only later introduced as a young man, Julius through another character. Julius is a doctor doing his psychiatric residency in New York City. Julius often uses his walks as to cool off from the pressures of his job working with his patients. The walks through New York are a reminder of freedom for him, he is often wandering. He wanders with really no direction, a sense of aimlessness to it, really lets the reader enjoy the book. Julius doesn’t ramble and this isn’t hard core explorations, it’s a flowing piece of writing. Julius grew up in Nigeria but the time and where exactly Julius is, switches back and forth. Chapters jump from Nigeria to Brussels and frequently back to Julius’ childhood and currently, his successfully growing psych career. Julius is with us the whole time and it does feel aimless, but Teju Cole, the author, never constricts Julius to a concrete plot. Julius wanders, but he wanders in a way that brings the reader along on a journey. There never is a set destination that a majority of the population is heading towards. The reader figures out Julius’s identity problem of being mixed raced, half German and half Nigerian, Julius’s experience in the States, and who Julius exactly is. Julius makes his life flow through tiny scenes, sometimes multiple scenes making up one chapter. But one chapter never stops or begins, it flows into the other and the reader continues on with Julius. Throughout the book Teju Cole shows that Julius has a hard time making decisions. But we, as readers, get to see Julius’s want to not be indecisive and his eagerness to be decisive. It seems Julius is heading towards somewhere at some points, but he keeps on continuing; and that is what keeps the reader to get to know Julius even more. The reader is truly captivated by Julius through Cole because all of the events that take place, are stringed together. The reader is in the moment with Julius, and always focusing on what is happening and not what is going to happen as Julius tells it himself and also commenting on it.
Post 1:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first few sections of Roger Rosenblatt’s memoir "The Boy Detective" it was clear that the most important ideas in Roger's life are investigation, history, mystery and nostalgia. "The Boy Detective" constantly switches from moments from Roger's childhood, back to present day, so quickly you may miss the transition between lives.
Roger talks about his walking expeditions of New York City, constantly looking for new mysteries to solve, or telling his readers an anecdote about this building, or that museum, anything really. But he’s not really “telling his readers” anything; rather he is having a conversation. He asks questions, “What do you think about that, pal?” Merely sitting in a coffee shop, sipping a warm cup of tea, telling stories from the good old days, or at least that’s how I imagine it.
When I chose this book I was under the impression it was going to be a suspenseful intriguing memoir of Rosenblatt’s childhood adventures exploring the streets of the stereotypical American city (New York), or encounters with strangers, but don’t be fooled because it is entirely different. It is much more of a history book and a book of references. He will take a moment or a memory and string in all the books or movies it makes him think of, what happens in those books and movies, or the history of the building the memory happened, or he moves onto something completely different without finishing the original thought. In a way it seems disjointed and unrelated, yet still has an interesting flow and ease about it. He writes in short passages, a stream of consciousness, a moment or thought leading straight into another thought, leading him into another, you never know where the story will go next, although I do often find there is some sort of deep message or contemplative question to go along with each of the sections.
Overall, I see a man trying to relive his childhood, a man now more experienced in life trying to revisit all the mysteries he wanted to solve as a boy detective. He wants to be like Edgar Allen Poe, writing the best detective stories, but be Sherlock Holmes at the same time trying to solve all the cases. A boy detective, looking for the solutions to life’s questions, but now a man with experience to come up with his own answers.
Ambramsky does not have one character specifically that he tells of throughout the book. Instead, he speaks of the the poverty stricken people of America as a whole, and then begins to break them down into sub groups. This book was written after volumes and volumes of research, so it becomes more factual than it is opinionated. This book was partially modeled after Michael Harrington's The Other America, which was published in 1962. This was a very influential book back in its time, and was said to be one of the possible reasons for Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty.
ReplyDeleteAmbamsky mentions this fact multiple times throughout the beginning of the book, which leaves the reader thinking that his book is going to be the same in depth study of poverty as Harrington's. The first part of Ambramsky's book goes into great detail about poverty and who is affected by it. He takes people from all around America and shares their stories, sometimes in quotation, and sometimes narrating. Later in the book however, he chooses to look at the future, and tell the reader what he believes should be done about poverty.
All in all, Ambramsky allows the reader to not just get to know one character, but a large group of people. I really appreciated this because it gave the reader many different perspectives on poverty in America, instead of twisting the idea through the story of one character. I really appreciate the objective tone in the book, because it allowed me to form my own thoughts and opinions without giving me a prescribed one.
How did you feel about that in your book? Did you feel like your narrator was a reliable one? How did it change the way you read the rest of your book?
I don't feel like Rosenblatt really allowed the reader to get to know the characters in his book on a personal level, there were many times where it was difficult to connect with the characters because we didn't know the reasons behind their actions, it was so factual. Although, with that said, he did give the reader freedom to interpret what he was talking about in anyway they wanted to. He asked the reader a lot of questions, whether they were rhetorical questions for himself, or for the reader there were some thought provoking ideas, many relating to the meaning of life - which is a little deep for me and where I'm at in my life, but hey, they did make me think.
ReplyDeleteIt was hard to tell what he was talking about sometimes, he switched from dreams, to his imagination, to his childhood back to the present so quickly that you never really know where the stories were coming from. I think Rosenblatt was a reliable writer in that he never deceived or lied to the reader, but it was written in a way that you had to stop and go "Wait.. what was that?"
The hardest part about reading the book fro me was seeing the connections between the stories, sometimes it was obvious and the led right into the next, but other times it was difficult to see the message or point in a passage.
Maybe the fact that he switched time frames in his book so quickly and seamlessly had some sort of other meaning... It seemed like time was clearly something that was very prevalent in the book.
DeleteIt sounds very interesting to have the author ask you questions as you go along as well... Did the questions that he asked somehow add to the passages right before or right after the questions?
You know how sometimes at the beginning of a chapter in a book there will be a quote from somewhere that magically fits in with that chapter? Was that sort of what the questions were like in the book?
I find that very often, the structure of the piece has a lot to do with the meaning of it.
I definitely think the structure was significant to the story, but I just couldn't pick up its significance myself. It depended on the questions, there were definitely cases where he'd end a passage, and bring it back in the first line by asking a question that was related, as well as ending a passage with a question and answering it in the next passage, so it was used as a connecting step, but not consistently.
DeleteHere are some of the questions, they are much like the "If you're stuck on an island what three items would you bring with you" type questions, I'll open to a random page and see what there is --
After finishing a passage about explorers navigating the world the next passage begins "Here's a thought; If there were a place on earth hat no one had ever been, would you go there?"
"Would you kill for money if you were assured of money, a great deal of money?"
"I put it to my memoir students: In what do you believe if not in dreams? The pluperfection of experience? The so-called reality of your life?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHuh, he's deep... those questions definitely have some sort of meaning. You don't just pop those in there to screw with the reader. Maybe those were things that he thought about frequently in his past, or maybe those questions all have their answers in random parts of the book.
ReplyDeleteThe book, Open City opens up with someone who is wandering the city, and that person is narrating it. He is only later introduced as a young man, Julius through another character. Julius is a doctor doing his psychiatric residency in New York City. Julius often uses his walks as to cool off from the pressures of his job working with his patients. The walks through New York are a reminder of freedom for him, he is often wandering. He wanders with really no direction, a sense of aimlessness to it, really lets the reader enjoy the book. Julius doesn’t ramble and this isn’t hard core explorations, it’s a flowing piece of writing. Julius grew up in Nigeria but the time and where exactly Julius is, switches back and forth.
ReplyDeleteChapters jump from Nigeria to Brussels and frequently back to Julius’ childhood and currently, his successfully growing psych career. Julius is with us the whole time and it does feel aimless, but Teju Cole, the author, never constricts Julius to a concrete plot. Julius wanders, but he wanders in a way that brings the reader along on a journey. There never is a set destination that a majority of the population is heading towards. The reader figures out Julius’s identity problem of being mixed raced, half German and half Nigerian, Julius’s experience in the States, and who Julius exactly is. Julius makes his life flow through tiny scenes, sometimes multiple scenes making up one chapter. But one chapter never stops or begins, it flows into the other and the reader continues on with Julius. Throughout the book Teju Cole shows that Julius has a hard time making decisions. But we, as readers, get to see Julius’s want to not be indecisive and his eagerness to be decisive. It seems Julius is heading towards somewhere at some points, but he keeps on continuing; and that is what keeps the reader to get to know Julius even more. The reader is truly captivated by Julius through Cole because all of the events that take place, are stringed together. The reader is in the moment with Julius, and always focusing on what is happening and not what is going to happen as Julius tells it himself and also commenting on it.