Maia's Blog

Dear Mrs. Westfall,
I have recently finished reading the book The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides. The novel follows a family of five girls living with their pious and over-protective parents as they transition in their decision to commit suicide. The book is innovatively narrated by a high school boy (on the behalf of a group) who is extremely interested by the family of girls.
You make a really good point when you talk about the possibility of the book being focused on the group of boys via their fascination with the girls. However, the reader doesn’t really get much insight as to what the boys are like other than their mutual interest with the girls. You could derive a meaning from that point, possibly a gender one, but not much else. I want to presume that Eugenides likes to play with point of view, and that was what he was doing here; so, maybe his narrative would have been strengthened with the addition of a message on the boys who narrate the book. In fact, the meaning of this book is rather elusive since the boys don’t really come to many conclusions about the girls in the end other than that they have nostalgic affection and respect for them. Maybe Eugenides was not very concrete in what his meaning would be, although, it does paint an interesting picture of suburban life in the 70’s.
I think the pairing of The Virgin Suicides with the director Sofia Coppola was a good one considering Eugenides is very creative with his imagery, and Coppola in certain films (including this one) focuses and innovates her images. I don’t think The Virgin Suicides won an Oscar for anything, but I’m pretty sure Lost in Translation with Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson won her either Best Director or Best Screenplay.
Overall, I really liked The Virgin Suicides, although not as much as Jeffrey Eugenides’ most notable work Middlesex. I think this book played with point of view well, and, while fuzzy on an overall meaning or concrete theme, painted an insightful view of suburban life that was exploding during the time period. I think Eugenides is definitely a modern day writer to follow, although I am not sure what other books he has written.
In addition to my content with The Virgin Suicides, I enjoyed the honors program a lot this year. I think the format of the blog works really well as well as the method of submitting mini-reviews. I think that commenting back is one of the most useful things in terms of writing next letters, and gives the entire process a more conversational feel (reminding me why we call them “letters” to begin with). I’m satisfied with the array of books I have read this year, and I’ve found new authors that I like a lot.

Dear Mrs. Westfall,
I recently begun reading The Virgin Suicides, written by Jeffrey Eugenides, the same author of a book I read earlier on in the year called Middlesex. The novel follows a family of five daughters parented by the pious Lisbons. The main motive this book was written by the narrators (a few teenage boys that lived in the surrounding area) was to find reason and possible closure on the topic of their suicides.
Like Middlesex, Eugenides is very innovative in his choice in narrator. The book is narrated by a teenage boy, speaking on behalf of his friends and himself. The story he writes is a collection of their first-hand experiences as well as interviews and other sleuth-like research they conducted during their youth into their adulthood. What I find most elusive about the narrator and his friends is their purpose that is never directly addressed. The boys share a common fascination with the Lisbon sisters, however they fail to explain why they are writing about them. What makes their purpose more confusing is their narrative style that is on the border of journalistic writing, as portrayed by their interviewing of people and examination of sources, and a novelistic story-telling style. While romanticizing the lives of the Lisbon girls, they also focus in on the grim and factual aspects of their lives. Another thing I find interesting about the narrative style is its translation into film. In the movie version done by Sofia Coppola, the narrative is conducted by a teenage boy (in his teenage voice). However, much of the information the group of narrators had was found during their older years. So, for some reason, the director of the movie thought it would be better for the boys to speak from the past (that or it was not well thought out).
Like the narrators, the reader can see only a vague reason for the apparent misery of the five Lisbon sisters. They all seem to be very connected with one another mentally and spiritually, including Lux whose sexual promiscuity somewhat distances herself from her sisters. The only true exception to this might be Cecelia, the youngest sister who is somewhat of an outsider in her age group and commits her suicide alone. She is the most clearly morbidly depressed out of all of the girls. The rest of her sisters all committed suicide at the same time as a group, which indicates to me the extent of their connections with one another. I think this type of connection is inevitable living with so many sisters within such small quarters. In addition, they seem to have a common enemy: their repressive parents. Their parents seem to be the main reason they are ever sad or irked.
I think because of the characters in this book it could easily be looked at in the gender lens. Because there are four girls and the only people they can interact with for the most part is each other, it is interesting to look at their views and attitudes. Unfortunately, their views and attitudes are not exactly explicit in the book as they are not explicit to the narrators. The only one that seems to act out and explore her femininity is Lux, whose behavior could also be looked at psychologically.
Overall, I like The Virgin Suicides a lot although it does not have the structural and topical complexity of Eugenide’s other work Middlesex. Since this book was written before that one, you can obviously see how he’s grown as a writer.

Dear Mrs. Westfall,

I have recently finished reading Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. The text is a non-fiction travel account written by Krakauer based off of the journal entries of “Alexander Supertramp” (otherwise known as Chris McCandless) and the interviews of the people he met and knew during his travels and life. Through his research, Krakauer pieced together Supertramp’s journey through the wildernesses of America and eventual death in the Alaskan wilderness.

One of the definite themes in this book is the notion of true freedom that is, like you said, linked to the same desires Huckleberry Finn had. Both characters are strange about their relationships with people, and both make connections along their journey (Huck with Jim and Chris with say Jan and Bob or Ron Frantz). However, I think how they handle their connections with people is different. Huck strives throughout the book to keep Jim around, while Chris seems to flee from most of the connections he makes (even though they may mean something to him) in order to pursue the wilderness and true freedom. However, once he reaches the end of his journey and life in Alaska, I’m sure he recognized that solidarity was not exactly the best idea in the wilderness. Had he had company, he could have possibly survived. The ways in which Huck and Chris approach freedom, in my opinion, are very different. Since Huck is a child, it seems as though his desire for freedom is unconscious – he does not seem to think about it deliberately. However, Chris is a different story. His search for freedom seems to be part of this ideology he had for himself throughout his teenage years and in college. McCandless deliberately wanted to escape from society and rejected almost anything from it. I think one of the only things that truly tied him to society was his coming and going relationships with people.

The way Krakauer handled McCandless’ death impressed me. Because he did research on what dying on starvation must be like, he painted both an accurate portrait of a painful death but made it connect with his readers. Instead of emphasizing the horridness of McCandless’ death, Krakauer made it a bittersweet type of thing, but didn’t exactly assume that what he was saying was the exact case. He writes that, “Some people who have been brought back from the far edge of starvation, though, report that near the end the hunger vanishes, the terrible pain dissolves, and the suffering is replaced by a sublime euphoria, a sense of calm accompanied by transcendent mental clarity. It would be nice to think McCandless experienced a similar rapture” (198). He then goes on to connect this notion to the final picture McCandless took of himself before his death (which is shown at the beginning of the book). And, he is right – McCandless is smiling in a euphoric way and seems totally at peace. This brings the question to mind of whether or not McCandless’ death could be seen as a somewhat positive thing. Although he died, he got his final wishes and his notion of complete freedom, and he died happy as well. This also brings into mind what the psychology of starvation must be like, and how this must have translated into McCandless’ brain. Had this book been written in first person it would be very interesting.

Overall, I really enjoyed Into the Wild. It was a different type of genre that I usually don’t take much interest in, and I am sure there are very few truly great travel accounts out there. In addition, the story of McCandless is a valuable one to know. I think anyone who reads this is able to connect with the desire for total freedom. The fact that McCandless pursued this is definitely admirable.

Dear Mrs. Westfall,
I am currently reading Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. The novel is a biography of Christopher McCandless, otherwise known as “Alexander Supertramp”, a recent college graduate who abandons his conventional lifestyle and journeys through the wilderness of North America in an attempt to become one with nature.
I find that Into the Wild is interesting in terms of genre. It is a biography that focuses in on Christophoer McCandless, but I also think it could be considered something more. In a way, I think it is similar to In Cold Blood in that it is genre-bending. Krakauer pieced together the narrative of Supertramp’s travels through his journal entries and more, so I’m sure there was a lot of filling in of gaps in order to make the narrative coherent. What Krakauer had to do was possibly more complicated than the work of any other biographer. Writing about a subject that he had never met, nor any of his peers had met, he had to try to accurately build up what the character of “Supertramp” must have been in reality. This must have taken a lot of cunning and creative responsibility, and is thus set apart from other biographies that focus in on famous subjects that are dead or alive. Instead of focusing in on a famous person that is fascinating to some, Krakauer wrote about a subject that was considerably normal but took an extraordinary turn in his life.
Into the Wild, in my opinion, could be put next to Walden easily on a bookshelf. The protagonist and main subject adapts a transcendentalist view on the world and abandons society and a conventional lifestyle, just as Walden had. The only difference being that Walden was more philosophically innovative during its time, and Into the Wild seems to be an exercise of that philosophy. However, Alexander Supertramp takes a lot of inspiration from the author Jack London. If I’m not mistaken, I remember reading a short story freshman year about a young man going into the wilderness or snow that may have resembled the story of Supertramp to an extent. Anyway, the protagonist’s adoption of transcendentalist views is impressive to me because of the time in which he made his travels. In an increasingly modern society, Christopher McCandless adapts and exercises transcendentalist views on life.
Reading the book, there are stark contrasts between the text and the movie adaptation. Although the book contains journal excerpts and letters written by McCandless himself, the movie version contains a lot of narration by the protagonist himself, adding to somewhat to the romanticism of it all. The tone of the movie is romantic in its celebration of nature, while the tone of the book is a bit more representative of nature (if that makes sense).
Overall, I am enjoying reading Into the Wild. It is a refreshing change of genre from what I have been reading lately, and I hope to see where the story goes (even though the ending is revealed in the beginning).

Dear Mrs. Westfall,

I have recently finished reading Middlesex written by Jeffrey Eugenides. The novel is narrated by an intersex man named Cal (once referred to as Callie or Calliope). Cal recounts his family history which includes the peculiar genetic traits he and his ancestors have held as well as the instances of incest within his family (most prominently with his grandmother and grandfather: Desdemonda and Lefty although his father and mother are cousins as well). The novel then follows Cal’s realization of his condition and how he handles it into adulthood.

The characters of Desdemonda and Lefty, like you said, are very interesting and portrayed sympathetically. The background information on their life in Greece and immigration into the Americas is definitely important. Through his writing, Cal seems to show a fixation on history. This is either spurred from or attributed to in some way his detailed recounting of his own family history. Since his own family history and genetic history has shaped who he is, the section regarding Desdemonda and Lefty is necessary, especially to get Cal’s main themes across. Cal often compares his condition to historical events. When speaking of Berlin, he thinks that, “This once divided city reminds [him] of [himself]. [His] struggle for unification, for Einheit” (106). Cal, as a writer, is clearly historically motivated. He believes that the events that occur generations before a person’s own birth can shape them entirely.

Cal as a narrator is also a very wise choice. He’s writing in the style of a memoir, so he is obviously writing through the biographical lens (even though, he is a fictional character, and Eugenides may not necessarily be writing biographically). It was a wise, but bold, decision for Eugenides to choose the narration of this story to be first person. Since the narrator is a hermaphrodite, and is writing about that topic exactly, it’s a deeply personal experience to read. However, Eugenides might be making extremely bold claims through that. Eugenides, who is not hermaphrodite, is kind of speaking for them. I’d have to read up on it, but I’m sure there is criticism of Eugenides’ portrayal of hermaphrodites especially since he attributes it so closely to incest. In addition to providing insight into an unfamiliar topic or condition for most people, Cal is great as a narrator because, although he chooses to be male, he is two things at once (because he was once female). Because Cal was brought up as a female, but was a hermaphrodite and chose to be male, he is, as he stated in the beginning of his book, a perfect example of the forces of nature versus nurture. I’m sure there is other criticism out there either praising or debunking Cal as a narrator that would be interesting to read. Personally, I think Cal is great as a narrator, especially in the style of a memoir.

Overall I have loved Middlesex. I’m beginning to settle with the fact that I am either a structuralist/formalist when I read, and I have definitely taken that type of lens while reading Middlesex. The key to truly understanding this book is definitely within the narrative voice and choice in narration of Eugenides. However, it is difficult to pinpoint the reason for Eugenides’ choice of Cal as a narrator. I’m certain he knew it was a wise and interesting choice, but I know there is more to it.