One of the most interesting features of the play was the way that information about what happened to Elizabeth was slowly revealed. Based on several perspectives (Elizabeth as a 24-year-old, trapped inside her head; Elizabeth as an 18-year-old; and the townspeople, observing her condition at 24 years old), the audience is able to slowly understand the full scope of the story. This reminded me considerably of something that we read last year.
The Things They Carried also jumped around a lot, changed narrators, and used surreal storytelling techniques. The overall impressions I received from the two works were similar; confusion was the first response, followed by gradual comprehension and an abrupt ending. Similar techniques were used in other books I've read, like Cloud Atlas and If on a winter's night a traveler; these I've discussed previously, so I won't waste space reiterating my points. However, I haven't discussed Neuromancer.
If you're not familiar with the novel, it's a disjoint account of a hacker's attempts to crack a highly-developed AI. The setting is quite foggy, and few details are given, contributing to a sense of unreality; the narration is also disorienting, and makes less and less sense as the plot progresses. However, by the end of the book, a good number of the hanging ends have been resolved, and even without understanding exactly what has happened, a reader can feel a sense of completion.
Still, I didn't deeply enjoy any of the above works. Perhaps it's an effective use of reader response theory-- but I can't say this kind of manipulation of confusion particularly appeals to me as a reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know!