The influx of characters presented in There There was a surprising way to weave the complex narrative together. These narratives were told through different generations, perspective, and expressed different motivations to come together at the powwow. The surprising part, to me, was the choice to have characters I would have simply deemed as antagonists have their own section, like Harvey, Bill, and Octavio for example. We are shown their characters through one person’s perspective, but then they are given the chance to show their perspective. Not necessarily to redeem them, I think, but to show their circumstances because they too are affected in one way or another because of who they are. Not only was keeping up with the amount of characters that came and went in different sections somewhat difficult, but the narration itself would switch from first to third person, and if one specific character’s section was in first person, it could be in third person for their next section. Adding to that, the narrations weren’t in chronological order either as some would take place in the past. At first I felt as if Tommy Orange didn’t want the reader to feel comfortable and settle in one style, but then it came together as more like Dene’s story project. There isn’t one narrative or story that dictates the novel as they are all parts of one ongoing community that is suffering because of circumstances they have little to no control.
I love reading through the child perspective especially when dealing with heavy subjects. Like it has been mentioned in class, rather than describe the battlefield or war, it is more effective to depict the red shoe. Along that same strand, a child’s narrative provides (or maybe is) that red shoe. Orange’s choice to have Opal Viola Victoria Bear Shield be the eyes to depicting the Occupation of Alcatraz was a great choice and one I appreciated. Orange did not state what the political movement was in the beginning, but he did leave blatant clues. He made sure to provide the date, January 1970, the phrase, “that prison,” and that the family was staying on an island (page 48). The reader may pick up on those hints, but rather than focus on the general he zooms in on one young girl whisked from her home, who has to sleep in prison cells. We as readers pick up on what she doesn’t, which heightens the tension, especially when it’s done through the first person narrative.
Opal’s next section switches from first to third person and we are not as bound to her perspective. She’s older now with an understanding of what happened to her. Rather than have the scene with Ronald in first person, it is done through a flashback and filtered through older Opal. However, there are parallels in these two sections. In the first, Opal leaves her bear Two Shoes behind in his bad shape, she “left him like that” (page 58). This was after Jacquie had been raped by Harvey. When she’s older and remembering, as Opal sleeps with the bat, she “had taken to holding the thing like she’d once held Two Shoes for comfort” (page 166). Then she knocks Ronald out and also leaves him on the ground, as she did Two Shoes. The similarities are meant to remind the reader of the earlier section and compare. Opal knew what was going to happen whereas before, she didn’t understand what Jacquie was referring to earlier with Harvey. These two sections were interesting to compare, especially with the changes done in perspective. There were other characters whose sections go through the same change, but Opal’s struck me as the most intriguing because it went from that child perspective to a more detached, but more knowledgeable adult. Tommy Orange’s choices in how and when to shift are interesting and I look forward to discussing them in class.
x
Hi Joana,
ReplyDeleteI love your point about the book being similar in style to Dene Oxendene's storytelling project. In the same way that Dene is allowing people the space to tell their own story in their own way, Orange is giving many different characters the chance to speak to what happens at the powwow. I'm interested though in the way Orange is cultivating the story, creating character, and composing the narrative as opposed to the way Dene talks about his storytelling project within the narrative. It's a fascinating story within a story and maybe a way of commenting on the way we tell certain kinds of stories.
-Kari
Hi Joana,
ReplyDeleteI want to second liking your point about the narrative style being similar to Dene's project. I was also interested in reading your interpretation of paralleling Two-Shoes and Ronald, as while I kind of saw that, I saw a more immediate, and less savory, parallel between the roughed up and left behind Two-shoes and Jacquie after being raped, as she too seems rather roughed up and left behind. But while Two-Shoes was physically in bad shape, Jacquie seemed to be more in emotionally bad shape, which is typically the realm of children and their teddy bears who comfort them from bad dreams or trauma. As if she was the one who needed the emotional presence of care, but as the bear was gone, so was her symbolic hope of care.
Me too. and it was enlightening to find this. I was also taken aback by the chapter written in the YOU. which only happens once. I don't know how, when you're doing this complicated structure, you know it's working. e
ReplyDeleteI like that you point out how this book is similar to Dene's project, I was wondering if that character gave the author a chance to explain their motivation and have it within the narrative instead of doing another interlude type chapter.
ReplyDeleteI like how you explain the child perspective, how the reader can pick up on things that the child can't, even if the child sees something clearly. When Jacqui is assaulted, it's clear to us, even if Opal's interpretation at the time is not quite the same. It's really interesting how you can have a character that shows the reader more than they, themselves, know.