Confusing is a word I would use to describe this book.
Faces In the Crowd was a pretty experimental story and perspective into storytelling and what is true or not. Even though I can see the appeal in this kind of meta book in a book where you never really know what the author is actually saying and it all makes sense in the end of the book, I personally do not enjoy it and would rather someone tell me a story from start to finish like I am a five year old at library story time.
The one thing that I thought was cool about the fragmented story, however, was how it reflected the main character’s life responsibilities. I read online on a book review that the fragmented storytelling style was meant to represent the main character not being able to consistently write her novel due to her familial responsibilities and having to put down the book and pick it back up again sporadically. There is a quote where the main character mentions her inability to further pursue her work as a writer because of her pregnancy, but I cannot remember where it is off the top of my head, and I am running short on time. I think that this feeling of not being able to fully realize your dreams is a feeling that is very real to me in the sense that it happens so often. My mother often tells me about the things that she had to give up on in order to have a family such as moving to New York or pursuing a career in academia. I find that this is something that scares me a lot about the future and I think that this book touched on that in a very unique way.
When I listened to the lecture, a lot of very abstract phrases were thrown around about the things that this book was trying to accomplish, but the one phrase that stuck out to me and kinda confused me was something along the lines of “to continue a career in writing is to continue a career in folding time” (this is a paraphrase pls don’t report me to the academic dishonesty police). I understand that this makes sense in the context of the book, but I personally think that this is confusing as heck and that it’s taking the act of writing words on a page, and trying to make it sound like you’re using alchemy to turn bread into wine. It might be a hot take, but I do not think that the act of writing novels should be so deep that we transcend the human understanding of truth and time. Sometimes I just wanna read a book that makes sense the first time through and can instantly enjoy and not have to ponder and philosophize about.
My question for the class: Do you enjoy consuming rlly tough to understand media or do you like to read more straight forward types of media?
Jonathan
Hi! Awesome blog post, ur title really brought me in LOLLOL
Regarding your question, I think I can appreciate the more difficult type of books, but it is definitely not enjoyable. I try and take things from it to learn, but end up just resenting it more… So definitely more straightforward types of media for me!
“I read online on a book review that the fragmented storytelling style was meant to represent the main character not being able to consistently write her novel due to her familial responsibilities and having to put down the book and pick it back up again sporadically.”
Well, she tells us this in the novel itself. E.g. “Everything I write is—has to be—in short bursts. I’m short of breath.” (4) “I go back to writing the novel whenever I’m not busy with the children” (10). No need to go to reviews when what you want is in the text!
“a lot of very abstract phrases were thrown around”
What is an abstract phrase?
“to continue a career in writing is to continue a career in folding time”
This also comes from the book: “If you dedicate your life to writing novels, you’re dedicating
yourself to folding time” (115). You spend a lot of time saying this is confusing, but much less time (none at all?) trying to understand it. I think it’s pretty simple: what happens when you fold something? Think of folding a piece of paper: you make two opposite edges meet, bringing them together. So with time: you would bring two otherwise distant points in time together. We’ve seen this from Proust onwards. It’s not that complicated in the first instance if you simply take the time to think about it.
You tell us that this was a very rushed post: “I am running short on time.” Perhaps Luiselli’s simply asking you to stop, take a little time, and think both about what she is saying, and also about what you yourself are saying.
Hi Jon! Your title was definitely a catch! I dont particularly enjoy reading dense media but I do enjoy reading texts that have deeper meaning and things to pull apart, I find it really fascinating when someone is able to pull those things apart!
Hi Jon, I held very similar feelings after reading the book. I was confused and personally wanted to get it so bad, and it wasn’t until sitting on it for a few days and giving it a think (especially after watching the lecture) did I come to the conclusion that maybe the point is to not get it. Maybe Luiselli just wanted us to have such a thinking time and once you give it less thought, it becomes enjoyable again. I personally found it quite funny when reading it for what it says and while I prefer my baby easy boring linear books, Faces in the Crowd was not the absolute worse 🙂
Hi, first of all, love the title! In response to your question, I find myself torn on whether or not I enjoy the reading challenging material, as throughout this course in my blog, I have found myself doing a fair share of complaining about challenging texts, but there is definitely something to be said for the satisfaction of finishing something difficult.