Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The Windup Girl

There have been many a discussion brimming about this, and it seems everybody is very love/hate. I am not 100% where exactly I stand though. I think I read where one of ya'll said English was not Bacigalupi's main language? which if this is true I'm glad that someone brought it up because it makes a lot more sense. That is the main thing that makes this story hard. One of my favorite books is Memoirs of a Geisha. I love this book but won't lie, there is a lot of Japanese that I sort of skimmed over. I'm trying to do the same thing here, and it is helping.

Also, the use of the word "dung." I mean seriously? How many uses can there really be for dung in this little future we have going on? Spare me.

One point I wanted to bring up, however, (and this is the main purpose of this post) is the use of so many narrators. While I can sort of see the argument of why Bacigalupi did this, I think it adds to the confusion when there are so many plotlines being strung together. It's pretty hard when I'm attempting to understand the entire world that the book is based on as well. (all this calorie and megadont mess). How does everyone else feel about the multiple narrator situation?

7 comments:

Tristram said...

I am a huge fan of multiple narrators. They add more to the plot, and give the reader a better understanding of the situation. It also offers different phychological perspectives. This is similar to George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, which features a million billion characters. All of this being said, the story is still confusing, but even if it was based on one point of view it would probably still be difficult.

salsa said...

It really depends on the author's skill as to whether multiple narrators work or not. I think it works and gives us several perspectives, as well as giving us glimpses into the thoughts of characters we wouldn't otherwise due to the limited third person narrator.

As for the dung, the two main uses were fertilizer (I assume anyway) and as a fuel source.

Ernest said...

I can enjoy a book with multiple narrators, but I generally enjoy ones with only one or two. I tend to get attached to one character, so the more narrators there are in a story the more frustrated I become.

AmeliaLinne said...

I really don't this story could be told from a single narrator's perspective. None of them know enough to tell the whole tale. Could you imagine if Emiko was narrating the story? It would be interesting, but even more confusing. No matter who you chose, you would lose the inner workings of the politics.

John Harris said...

It felt a little like a Tarantino movie to me at times. Everything is happening to all these different characters, but it is all part of a greater story.

Laura said...

I agree with Amelia about the necessity of the many narrators in order to give the reader a more or less complete view of the situation(s). This way, not everything had to be openly discussed between characters because the reader gets to see inside the heads of the main players, revealing different motives.

Mark Penner said...

I definitely thought the use of multiple narrators was a essential piece of this book. The grand chess game that is played out would not be as rich if seen from only one side.