For two stories centered so much on death, these two are incredibly different.
Bullet is a development of character that leaves chronology behind and shows random scenes from the main character's life. There is a long list of what he doesn't remember (an incredible number of things one might consider important), and a single, detailed scene that stays with him. Perhaps it's the randomness triggered by his brain being destroyed, but it seems to me that the author intended to show us that it had stayed with him, and shaped him (his odd penchant for picking out verbal choice would certainly demonstrate that).
Isabelle, well, I wish I could say I understood the technique more. Maybe if I read through it a few more times than I already have, I'll be able to provide some more insight. But I am amazed that the author was able to keep me from guessing the significance of the title until the last sentence. It was surprisingly engaging.
Tobias Wolff's "Bullet In the Brain" read by T.C. Boyle
Click here for the link to Boyle's audio reading of the story: http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/02/11/080211on_audio_boyle
[If the link doesn't work, just copy and paste into the browser address bar]
[If the link doesn't work, just copy and paste into the browser address bar]
The Order of All Through the House
For the most part, I enjoyed the effect of the reverse chronological order structure of "All Through the House." The main focus of the piece is on the reasons why Wayne murdered his wife and family, and placing the events backwards in time allows us to first find out about this mystery - why Wayne did what he did - and as the events are revealed to us, we can trace back through what we already know and be able to say "oh, this caused that and that event led to this other thing." The meaning of each event is immediately clear and thus the effect is a little more profound than if the story had been in chronological order. If the story were in order, we would be forced to look back or try to recall earlier in the story to figure out the importance of what happened earlier in time. However, there was one negative (in my view) impact of flipping the order of events. The Freitag triangle structure seems to flip as well. Most of the action and suspense takes place in the first half. By the midway point on page 275, we have solved the mystery for ourselves and we know how everything plays out. The rest is kind of like being introduced to the rising action after the climax. It actually is a somewhat interesting effect, but the second half of the story still dragged a bit for me.
As for "Recitatif," I read through it assuming Twyla was black, I guess since Twyla sounded more like black person's name to me. Looking back on it though, there don't seem to be a whole lot of clues one way or the other. I think the Jimi Hendrix discussion makes a bit more sense if Twyla were black and Roberta were white, since rock and roll was much more popular with whites, but of course Jimi Hendrix was black, so we probably can't conclude much from it. The author probably intentionally used the fact that Jimi Hendrix was black but more popular among whites to make the races of Twyla and Roberta as unclear as possible
As for "Recitatif," I read through it assuming Twyla was black, I guess since Twyla sounded more like black person's name to me. Looking back on it though, there don't seem to be a whole lot of clues one way or the other. I think the Jimi Hendrix discussion makes a bit more sense if Twyla were black and Roberta were white, since rock and roll was much more popular with whites, but of course Jimi Hendrix was black, so we probably can't conclude much from it. The author probably intentionally used the fact that Jimi Hendrix was black but more popular among whites to make the races of Twyla and Roberta as unclear as possible
All through the house
I loved this story. I liked that it was told one scene at a time in a reverse chronological order. The story would have worked reading straight from past to present but it would have taken some of the surprise out of it. We would have known and understood why Larry didn’t want to talk to the author and why he set the house on fire when he found out that a film crew was coming. I appreciate the use of subheadings here and that they gave a time frame. It informed the reader on how to place each scene in chronological order so we could see how they fed each other.
However I'm not sure I liked the lack of punctuation with the dialogue. There were times it was hard to tell someone was speaking and i had to go back and look for tags. I'm not sure why Coake made that choice unless, because the point of view was 3rd it part of the narrative.
And I liked the title being a line from a Christmas poem though I didn't realize it till after I read the story.
However I'm not sure I liked the lack of punctuation with the dialogue. There were times it was hard to tell someone was speaking and i had to go back and look for tags. I'm not sure why Coake made that choice unless, because the point of view was 3rd it part of the narrative.
And I liked the title being a line from a Christmas poem though I didn't realize it till after I read the story.
Recitatif Response
The first thing that struck me about this short story was the title. What did it mean? Why was it important? After looking it up, I found that the title’s main description/meaning, although having several possible means, is "the tone or rhythm peculiar to any language," (Thank you freedictonary.com and Wikipedia! Lol). This title is perfect for this story and really sets the tone for what Morrison is trying to accomplish.
In a story that’s primary storyline focuses on racial issues seen through two girls, it is interesting that Morrison never ever lets the reader know what character is African American and which character is Caucasian. We do know that that the characters are different races. However, Morrison weaves the story so well that it is impossible to tell which character is which. I personally would believe that Morrison doesn’t even know which character is which race. I know that I personally thought that Twyla was African American and Roberta was Caucasian at first but after rereading I’m not so sure. So I am curious to know what everyone thinks. Which character is which race? And does it really matter? Or do we still get the main idea of the story, the story for all languages or all races (from the title), without knowing which character is which? Did everyone feel that Morrison’s removal of racial codes worked, either in the story or in proving the focus/message of the piece?
I really really liked this piece. It’s probably my favorite piece we’ve read so far! I hope everyone liked it too and I’ll be interested to see what everyone has to say!
In a story that’s primary storyline focuses on racial issues seen through two girls, it is interesting that Morrison never ever lets the reader know what character is African American and which character is Caucasian. We do know that that the characters are different races. However, Morrison weaves the story so well that it is impossible to tell which character is which. I personally would believe that Morrison doesn’t even know which character is which race. I know that I personally thought that Twyla was African American and Roberta was Caucasian at first but after rereading I’m not so sure. So I am curious to know what everyone thinks. Which character is which race? And does it really matter? Or do we still get the main idea of the story, the story for all languages or all races (from the title), without knowing which character is which? Did everyone feel that Morrison’s removal of racial codes worked, either in the story or in proving the focus/message of the piece?
I really really liked this piece. It’s probably my favorite piece we’ve read so far! I hope everyone liked it too and I’ll be interested to see what everyone has to say!