Thursday, September 11, 2008
Jeremy's Post for 9/11/2008
In light of the somber tone of the day and memorials at Ground Zero in New York, Special Topics in Calamity Physics strikes me as a surprisingly accurate reflection of our national identity and intellectual thought. Many news reports highlight the fact that we are still highly vulnerable to attack despite the billions spent on National Security. Does Pessl force her readers to deal with this vulnerability through Blue's vulnerability in the story? In a world where every unfamiliar face is a potential terrorist, is it feasible that Gareth, the most familiar face in Blue's life, is the strategist, Socrates, of the Nightwatchmen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I think Blue could serve as an analogy for our national search for safety--at home and in the world. We called abandonment one of Blue's flaws in class. America is currently being abandoned by many of its traditional allies because of our War on Terror. I think Pessl intends for us to highlight our own vulnerability to death and destruction which often only comes to us through the news. Blue's parodies of Cherry Jeffries near the end of the novel could be a stab at the sensationalism of our ever-present, usually-superficial media as well.
Gareth as the terrorist neighbor next door is feasible. I can envision him as a sleeper cell waiting to be activated. On a deeper level, Gareth could be what we most fear--the familiar turning out to be more terrifying than all the foreign terrorists we can imagine. I can even hear Gareth haranguing his glassy-eyed students on how freedom is never really free and detailing how Che and the rest had to strike fear in the hearts of their enemies to "save" their country from decadence and the pitfalls of conscience-less capitalism. (I even think there is a quote to that effect, though I could not find it for the life of me.)
J.J.Bach's response to J.J. Armstrong
We as Americans usually become fearful of what is unfamiliar to us and that is why we tend to overlook what is familiar. When you look at the current presidential campaign, for example, and see each candidate banging the "change drum" it becomes obvious that they are both counting on the other to retreat back to the familiarity of their respective party line politics. With Gareth we see a man, in my view, who is retreating from the familiar, radical Nightwatchmen and adulterer, to the unfamiliar. A legitamate university professor and father who is well respected. What does he hope to gain by making this kind of a leap? He wishes for Blue's independance which could be, if there is such a thing, a legitamate reason for why he leaves her at the end. He knows that the unfamilar world that he has raised her in is also a fake one and by keeping her in that world he risks her becoming a part of that world which is fraudulant, because Gareth himself is a fraud. By abandoning her at the end and possibly murdering Hannah Gareth, in a way, releases her from that unfamilar world he has raised her in. It sounds strange but I think he acted this way because he couldn't face Blue with the truth of his familiar world.
In this book, pretty much everything is left open ended, and I don't think there are any definite answers, so it's very possible that Gareth is Socrates. Many things in the book seem to indicate that he is. For instance, it is difficult to understand why Gareth abandoned Blue, and one of the only reasons that I can believe he would actually abandon her for is his involvement in the nightwatchmen, since Blue told him earnestly that she would go to the police. However, I don't like to believe that Gareth is Socrates, because it seems too much of a nice formulaic plot where everything comes together and fits perfectly in the end.
I didn't get the impression that Pessl was trying to get us to deal with this vulnerability through Blue, however, it's very possible that this was her intent. If anything, I think it's more likely Pessl herself was affected by the vulnerability Sep. 11 induced, and this vulnerability subconsciously affected her writing. We're influenced by every experience we have, and these influences will come out when people write stories or create art of any sort.
Melissa's response to JJ:
I liked your comment that what we most fear is "the familiar turning out to be more terrifying than all the foreign terrorists we can imagine." It's pretty interesting because I think we take the familiar for granted. We trust that the people we know, care about, and spend time with won't do anything to hurt or us, or anyone else (at least physically). But we don't really know this. We just take it for granted that they won't hurt us. That's why it's so much more horrifying to hear about a mother killing her children than a stranger doing the same thing. It's more comfortable to fear the stranger because then we can keep our distance and we know who the "enemy" is. But if someone we know is capable of these things, then everyone is a potential threat. And how can we possibly live our lives if everyone is a threat?
Melissa's response to JJ Bach:
It's interesting that you call the nightwatchmen and adultery Gareth's familiar world, and university professor and father the unfamiliar. This seems to be a reversal of what most people would consider the familiar and unfamiliar.
In terms of Gareth being a fraud, I'm reminded of the scene where Gareth laughs at Blue for defending justice. Blue quotes Gareth to himself: "Justice wields an erratic sword/ grants mercy to fortunate few/ Yet if man doesn't fight for her/'Tis chaos he's left to" (470). After Blue says this, Gareth has no idea who she is quoting until she says, "Gareth van Meer. 'The Revolution Betrayed'" (469). This portrays Gareth as a hypocrite, as he defended justice in one of his essays, yet belittle Blue for doing the same thing. If he is in fact a member of the nightwatchmen, this makes him even more of a hypocrite because he unjustly assists in numerous murders, perpetuating chaos. I think it's feasible he left Blue because realized his own hypocrisy and fraudulence, and how much how he had isolated her in his fraudulent world, and he didn't want her to be like him.
I don't find that overanalysis of this book is necessary. True, there were some loose ends left by the author and there is the possibility that at the time of the books' conception, she may have had the tragedy of that day and the subsequent sense of vulnerability in mind. By the same token, that may not have even been in her thoughts as she created her work. It may be that this is purely a piece of fiction writing and this is just her style. I do however agree that no matter how well we think we know people in our own lives, there are just some truths that we don't see, won't see, or can't see. This idea is apparent in the text.
While I find your questions intriguing, I do not feel as though Pessl necessarily wrote this novel to as a method for making her readers face their vulnerability as citizens of the United States. I agree that as Americans, we constantly face unknowns. We have been brainwashed into being suspicious of people of the Middle East, especially when we board planes, as a stereotype has (perhaps unintentionally) been set into place that terrorists come from that part of the world. However, I do not see a link between this sense of vulnerability and that of Blue and her situation. She is vulnerable in that everyone important in her life (ie Gareth and Hannah), have lied to her throughout her life and leave her in a state of confusion as she tries to make sense of their mysterious actions and pasts. It is feasible that Gareth is the strategist of the Nightwatchmen, as it says on page 486 in the novel “It was farcically obvious now. Dad was Socrates, otherwise known as The Thinker.” Given the nature of the Nightwatchmen and their level of secrecy, it is completely rational to think that Blue has gone through her entire life oblivious to her father’s involvement with the group. Even though she is naturally a person who dissects everything around her, there is little to lead her to be suspicious of the person in her life who has always been there for her, Gareth. Perhaps she was blinded by the fact that he was a doting father and therefore never suspected him of anything.
An interesting perspective, J.J., with a political and international dimension. I agree that many Americans felt more vulnerable after 9/11, less empowered. I loved the Jeffries satire, too. And the news so often depicts a murderer or political terrorist either as Jeffrey Dahmer (torturing small animals as a child, etc.) or as the sweet fellow next door. I'll try to locate that quote you couldn't find.
But did you agree with some of Gareth's jabs at capitalism? I certainly did. Paula
Every person in this world feels vulnerable at one time or another. I believe that possibly for the first time Gareth himself was feeling vulnerable and did not want to show that vulnerability to his daughter, or even possibly admit it to himself. Throughout the novel I could not find a place where he wasn't seemingly a strong character. Although he may have faltered through on a few things, he still seemed a very non-vulnerable character. This I believe was part of the reason that he did abadon his daughter. Gareth was always using literary references to teach his daughter, something that may seem strange to us all, yet seemingly made their relationship work. While Blue was putting everything together, I fully believe that Gareth knew she would discover the truth (even though I'm still a little foggy on what that truth is absolutely). At this point he felt extremely vulnerable, possibly the most he had ever felt (even with the death/suicide of his wife I don't feel he was vulnerable, guilty...possibly, but vulnerable...no). This I fully believe is the reason he left, not to run away from his daughter, but to try to run away from himself. Gareth did love Blue and only wanted the best for her, yet in his mind he had already provided all he could and he was left to succomb to his own demons. He was more talk than action and this final instance, his leaving Blue, was the point at which I thought of him more of a coward than of anything else. To simply run away from problems in a hope that they will not follow after. In the end I don't feel he left Blue for her sake, but for his own.
In Response to JJ-
I can also envision Gareth as "the terrorist neighbor next door", but if one really stops and looks at people such as this they fear of losing control more than anything else. I can't actually see Gareth going out and honestly partaking in any extremely horrific acts, because I don't think that he actually has the "guts" for it. Gareth's track record shows a great amount of time on the road and living in different places. People that normally partake in the gypsy lifestyle and aren't, are normally people that are running away. Possibly Gareth wasn't running, but rather looking for something but how are we to know that for absolute certainty? From his acts and his statements I feel that he is one that could be the mastermind behind something, but I don't think that he would be the one to "get his hands dirty". Even that though could be a stretch because of his track record of constantly on the move...in my opinion running away from problems instead of actually confronting them.
In Response to JF-
I fully agree that no matter how much we think we know people, we will never fully know anyone in our lives. Things are forever changing (for better or for worse) and the whole concept of "what you see is what you get" is complete false. This is apparent in Blue's changing appearance throughout the novel from when we are first introduced to her and through her physical transformation given by the bluebloods. From her changing how can we the reader even begin to trust her as a narrator? How would we know if she put in everything about her father, or if there is more that may shed more light on his life in general? We don't, and I don't think anybody ever will. There is too much that is not included. I also think that that was Pessl's (for me who likes concrete things) sick idea of a joke to leave so much open-ended.
J.J. B, I am a bit confused about the unfamiliar and familiar world you are analyzing for Gareth. He is retreating back to his terrorist world? In what way is the world fraudulent and fake for Blue? Paula
Melissa, I totally agree with you that we are more horrified by a mother killing her children than a stranger killing children although we abhor murder. To keep ourselves sane or somewhat sane, we have to believe that we can know people--that they are knowable--and that we can predict their behavior. Yet I think we often CAN predict their behavior. Paula
Kristine, I agree that there is an irony in Blue--so bright, so analytical--not discerning key parts of Gareth's character and past. Yet he has separated her (until her senior year) from life as most of us have known it. It's just the two of them rocketing from one obscure university town to another. He IS her whole security and her whole universe except for her enormous reading and knowledge. But that's not lived knowledge,after all. (She can read Madame Bovary, but has had no relationship before her senior year with anyone except her father. She has no context with which she can understand that novel about adultery and betrayal.Yet she does see Gareth's flaws (his manipulation and ill treatment of women, for example). Paula
Mel, a really interesting comment that you feel Gareth felt he was without flaws or weaknesses, yet fled at the end. Paula
In response to Melissa Pie -
I found your last line interesting...that Gareth left Blue not for her sake, but for his own. I completely agree with you and believe that he did, as you said, find himself vulnerable for the first time in his life and did not know how to handle the situation. All along, he probably knew that Blue had the level of intelligence to figure out Gareth's true identity/past, but he might not have thought it would ever happen. Thus, feeling extremely vulnerable, he left because he did not know how to deal with Blue's understanding. After all, how could a parent possibly explain to his daughter that he has been feeding her lies for her entire life and has been leading a secret life?
Response to Melissa Brooks -
I like and agree with this comment: "If anything, I think it's more likely Pessl herself was affected by the vulnerability Sep. 11 induced, and this vulnerability subconsciously affected her writing." I also did not think that Pessl purposely included the idea of vulnerability in her text and believe it to be unconsciously included rather than purposefully plotted. There are many instances of vulnerabilty in the novel, especially with Blue, Gareth, and Hannah, which I think is a common theme within mystery novels (which Pessl's novel somewhat resembles). However, this vulnerabilty is merely a small part of the novel in the larger scheme of events, ie. death, lies, abandonment, etc.
J.J. Bach response to Paula
I was refering to Gareth's radical past and his involment with the Nightwatchman. His radical 60's thinking and up bringing was his familiar world. His unfamiliar world of respected university professor is for most a familiar one. Trying to assert himself and Blue as legitament members of his unfamiliar world is what makes him fraudulent. He knows that he can't be a part of his unfamiliar world but at the same time he wants Blue to be a part of it because he dosen't want her in his familiar one.
J.J. Bach to Paula
One other thing I would possibly argue is another reason why he left Blue at the end was so she could move on and create/evolve her own familiar world.
In response to Melissa P, I disagree with the notion that we can't trust Blue because of the changes to her physical appearance. Who among us didn't change (or at least didn't long to change) our physical appearance as teenagers (or even as adults?). I do think we can prove Blue's unreliability as a narrator--I just am not convinced by the physical appearance argument. It might be fun if everyone brought in pictures of themselves as teenagers from one year to the next, as a demonstration. Paula
J.J. Bach's response to Kristine
I would have to agree with what you're saying because it does in a way echo what I said about Gareth wanting to keep her out of his "familiar world." Again it sounds strange but lying to her is one way Gareth and Hannah went about keeping her out of "the loop."
J.J. bach's respose to J.F.
Ultimately, despite the many different arguments, analysis, and perspectives that can be explored in this story, I would have to agree that this work is nothing more than a piece of fiction. I do think though that Pessel is trying to send a very real message to her readers. The message being that our precived reality is not actual reality.
J.J Bach to J.F.
I messed up with that last sentence. Essentially I was agreeing with J.F. Sorry, I'm having a bad day.
The familiar is often more terrifying than any foreign threat. I think that is part of the power of terrorism. Rarely do they attack army bases or aircraft carriers. Usually they blow up supermarkets or places of worship or businesses--the familiar places that people are most comfortable with. Blue was "attacked" in the most vulnerable and safe place in her life when Gareth leaves her. He was the only stable influence in her life and when he left it was as devastating to her natural order as any road-side bomb. I think this novel was an attempt at making sense of that devastation and maybe an attempt at gaining some closure with the whole abandonment which is still following her into Harvard.
Jeremy's Response to Paula's Response
I agree that Gareth takes the obvious, easy shots at capitalism that all people dissatisfied with the system do. I don't think that makes him particularly brilliant or astute. No other economic system has entrusted as much freedom to its citizens as the democracy fueled by capitalism in America. I think he needs to consider that when he is eating steak and drinking top-shelf Scotch behind his $18,000 desk.
Paula's response to Jeremy--I agree that Gareth's abandonment of Blue is very much of a "roadside bomb." And maybe Gareth does take cheap shots at capitalism. But--and admittedly this is a very small point--it's Blue's desk that is so expensive, no?
Yes, Blue's desk was expensive, but Gareth had the money to buy and ship it without batting an eye. He didn't seem to have a problem with that extravagance which obviously did nothing to advance the cause of freedom in third world countries or strike death blows to capitalist pigs.
Responding to the whole vulnerability thing, it strikes me like Hitler. He could put millions of Jews to death with righteous indignation but was reported to have become a vegetarian because he was reduced to tears over cruelty to animals. While calling Gareth a totalitarian dictator is stretching it even for me who doesn't like the guy, there is the residual of vulnerability left in even the most hardened villains of history. I think part of that is wrapped up in this novel. I can agree with Kristine that it may not be a large part, but then again, it could have been the motivation for putting any of this on paper to start with.
Post a Comment