(1) This is our first time to discuss specifics types of narrators doing the narrating within the narrative (notice that these differences are more than semantic; they are consequential). IN the novel, there is a quite new type of narrator, one who is both present and not present: he is the narrator in the (plural???) first person, yet he doesn't seem to be a character in the story (he is never directly addressed. How might we begin to account for this?
(1a) Connected to above, we could talk as to how the filmic version handles the odd narration of the book. Can you make an argument about the challenges for and responses of the film to the novel's narrating?
(2) When texts use first-person narration (as the book does in a weird way), we might expect that voice to guide us through the story (to be sure), but we might also expect it to guide our responses to the story (i.e., to tell us how to feel or react to events). I will make the claim that the novel never does this. Defend or refute.
(3) We can also talk about the texts as being "about" nostalgia and memory every bit as much as they are stories of these girls. Take an intellectual leap and address this idea.
(2) I noticed while reading The Virgin Suicides that I felt oddly detached from the characters and the events happening. I believe that feeling came from how the book was narrated. Because the first person was a mysterious 'We', the narrative seemed to simply gather and state facts for us to learn about and do with what we wish. Because the narrative didn't emote any sort of feeling about what was being told, I also felt like I could read the story without getting too wrapped up in feelings and emotions, which was a strange sensation while reading such a story.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Hilary - I felt the same way! It was really hard to attach myself to any of the boys that were supposed to be telling the story because I never knew who was actually narrating. I actually found it a little disconcerting because I couldn't ground myself in any one character who was supposed to know everything. Because of this set up, I think it made it harder to remember the significance of the boys as individual storytellers. The boys were simply conveyed as a "we," which is interesting because that's kind of how they described the Lisbon girls as well - one unified being.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that we as readers aren't sure how to react to the events that happened in the story is because we aren't exactly sure how each individual boy is responding to the issues at hand. The "we" gives a general statement about how they feel as a group, but I feel as if the sentiments are lost because they are not really attributable to any one person.
In literature and film, as the reader/ viewer, we try to identify with narrative in most circumstances. we identify with characters but we also identify with the narrative. consciously or not. i feel it is human nature to seek a connection. as far as the virgin suicides is concerned, identification is relatively hard. we are not sure which character is telling the story, therefore as the reader/ viewer, we struggle to connect with a single person as far as point of view. but this is beautiful. we then look at the narrative as rather a fly on the wall. the voice could be associated with an attitude, the setting, or an object rather than a single person. we are so used to the narrative being a single person or a camera. that is why we struggle to identify but on the other hand this is a different style of story telling that was well created by the author/ auteur.
ReplyDeleteWe are never told how to feel about the happenings in the book, but through the explanation of the way in which Cecilia wrote in her diary, we are meant to react in the same way that the narrator does to the girls themselves. The details we are given as to how she wrote in her diary, that it was weird and out of order, and went from a singular personal narrative to an all together WE, is in the same fashion that we are reading the novel. We never know who exactly is narrating for us, but regard our narrator as the whole group of boys themselves. We are meant to react to the novel as another one of the neighbors, trying to piece together the evidence based on rumors, and things that were seen, but never actually known.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, as human beings, we're accustomed to being spoon fed the details of all new ideas. Narrative storytelling definitely falls under this category. When movies/books break from the traditional narrative technique in the manner that The Virgin Suicides did, it is only natural that the initial reaction is confusion. The "We" used in the book becomes something of a unified viewpoint of those looking at the Lisbons from the outside. This goes from everyone in the diegesis to the reader/viewer as well. For me, it almost felt like a joint case study between the town and the reader of a presumably perfect American family.
ReplyDeleteThe narration in this novel was different from anything I've ever read. Usually, in my experience, stories are told from a single vantage point whether it's a character in the diegesis, or some omniscient narrator. The one exception to this 'single narrator' rule I've seen are stories like Rashomon in which the same story is retold several times, each by a different character. I've never seen the 'single narrator' rule broken like this; not that it's a rule, or anything.
ReplyDeleteBecause the narrator choses to tell a past story in present tense, I feel it helps put the reading audience into the story. The narration also does this exceptionally well, as we discussed in class, by instructing the reader not to touch the picture because it's evidence, as if we were more than mere spectators of a series of events. The narration adds another dimension by implying that we, the readers, are a character in this story. And I agree- this is a dimension almost impossible to convey through film.
As someone who feels an inexplicable need for resolution, I found it interesting that no explanation was given as to why the sisters took their lives.
It occurred to me that time is arranged differently in the film compared to the novel. In the novel, the story certainly has a timeline, but certain events seem to overlap each other. Such as the leaves, the part about the nurse, etc. Rather than one single, linear story, time is skewed by the way the narration follows evidence, research, and interviews. It's almost as if the narrator(s) let us put the story together ourselves just as they did.
ReplyDeleteAlso: I can't stop Giovanni Ribisi from reading the book to me.
In the film rendition of The Virgin Suicides, we hear a single voice telling the story, which tricks us into believing that there is only one narrator. Whoever is telling the story is presumably an adult version of one of the boys and is representative of the group. Evidence to this theory is given when we see in the beginning that the film took place 25 years prior to the narrator's account of events. We even get a flash-forward to an adult version of Trip Fontaine being interviewed by the narrator(s) (whose identity is further concealed by being off-camera) like the Errol Morris documentary, Thin Blue Line. However, the novel makes it seem as though all of the boys are collectively taking turns telling the story as they did when reading Cecilia's diary. Furthermore, the first-person plural 'we' as well as 'us' in third-person are seen throughout the book whenever the narrator(s) makes self-references.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative of the film version primarily sticks to the traditional Freytag's Pyramid structure with an exposition (start), rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion, all amidst being told through a flashback. We are given the ending first then slowly work our way−in a non-linear fashion−from Cecilia’s initial suicide attempt to the departure of the Lisbon parents after all suicides have completed. In the case of the book, the narrative seems to be avoiding this linear structure and doing something else. Moreover, the narrative is non-sequentially scattered in its agenda. It seems to be investigating the true reason for why the girls' committed suicide anyway (which like the film, it never does). This happens while trying to place blame on someone, not excluding the boys themselves who are, as I believe, the ones telling the story. Another thing that the book's narrative does is use its words to demonstrate the imagery surrounding the girls' lives (i.e. physical descriptions of what they and those around them look like in terms of appearance and their personal belongings as well as environmental objects).
Additionally, the imagery in the novel seems to be more vivid than that of the actual film, which I find surprising. In my opinion, the words do a better job painting a figurative picture of the story as I read it than the images from the movie. I believe that the reason in which what we see in the film is not visually as powerful as the book is because of suture. Suture is basically how we as an audience feel drawn into the story as the characters as if we were in the film's world ourselves. In the case of The Virgin Suicides, we are too drawn into the story to notice all of the descriptions and details that the film demonstrates from the book. We, therefore, take what we see as is and nothing more without giving it a second thought. The book uses strong words and phrasing to distract our attention from narrative issues such as questioning the title The Virgin Suicides when Lux killed herself despite being the only sister with any known sexual experience. Because of everything said before, the film has a more compelling narrative and less compelling imagery (image effects) whereas it is the exact opposite with the novel.