I enjoyed reading The Taiga Syndrome. The writing style was fun, focusing heavily on other senses besides sight. Often, smells or taste were described, bringing me more into the story. Incorporating different senses makes the fictional world or situations much easier to imagine. I assume the attention to detail is tied to the narrator being an ex detective. It was a nice touch that I thought helped give legitimacy to the narrator, even though she never managed to successfully solve a case.
The book is driven by questions. “WHAT ARE WE LETTING IN WHEN WE SAY GOODBYE?,” the questions in the journals, and the overarching questions of “what is the Taiga?” and “where is the man’s wife?” are some of the ones that come to mind. It drives home the book being a noir and having an ex detective protagonist. The constant fairy tale references like Hansel and Gretel or Red Riding Hood also added another interesting aspect to the story. Lots of fairy tales take place in dark, unknown woods, just like the one the narrator finds herself in. However, in her case, her fairy tale follows a story more akin to a Grimm’s Fairy Tale than Disney one.
The way the narrative jumps time, from the past, to the future, and then back to the present, paints an interesting story. The actual story itself also highlights time and how in the forest that the narrator finds herself in, time doesn’t seem to exist or work normally. Through the different time jumps, we’re given just enough about the future that we know something important happens, but we’re not quite sure exactly what it is. The past gives us a vague idea of why the narrator chose to take this case, but not all the details. I thought the vagueness of it all really helped the overall atmosphere of the story. It was eerie and spooky, everything felt off from the old man hiring the ex detective to the village and the forest itself.
I find it interesting that many of the books I’ve read for this class feature a nameless narrator. I’m not sure what the conclusion I should draw from that is, but it makes me focus on the story and themes a lot more than the actual main character. It always makes me feel like the main character isn’t the important part of the story, but instead I should focus on the rest of the world and characters around them.
Question: Did you like nonlinear aspect to the story? Did you feel like it added or took away from the overall narrative?
“The actual story itself also highlights time and how in the forest that the narrator finds herself in, time doesn’t seem to exist or work normally.” This tells us about the weight of the space in which the story (or should I say the stories, in the plural?) occurs. Therefore, the experience of space is essential to enter into what is being told. Your comment is very insightful. In your opinion, what do you think of the way in which Rivera Garza combines play with temporality and appreciation of narrative space?
Hey Sophie, I agree with you in that the nonlinear aspect of the story works well as it shows us how in the taiga, “time doesn’t seem to exist or work normally.” This adds to the eery tones the book gives me, and the pictures we looked at in class definitely give off that same vibe.
I think those questions of “WHAT ARE WE LETTING IN WHEN WE SAY GOODBYE?” and others like it, really helped me to read through the story. Knowing that the narrator didn’t know much more than I felt correct in a way, like we were discovering the ‘mystery’ together.
I agree with you that I don’t really know what to take away from this — the end didn’t feel truly like closure and it was quite a unique writing style, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Your question is very intriguing, because I think its nonlinear nature is vital to its eerie atmosphere that is vital to the book, but it complicates the actual meat of the plot. It certainly has pros and cons, but I think the non linear nature definitely heightened the mysterious and odd ambience of the book.