Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Rob and Grendel.
My character Rob from High Fidelity, could be compared to the protagonist Grendel in John Gardner's Grendel. While Rob is a plain, middle-aged, owner of a failing record shop in London, and Grendel is a a huge hairy beast that feeds on flesh of the Danish people, there are some strange similarities. First of all, both the middle aged man and the god knows how old monster are jerks. Rob even describes himself, mulitple times, as an "arsehole." So there you go. Rob was in a relationship for a while with Laura. While they were dating, he willingly accepted a lot of money from Laura to help keep his record shop going, while she worked at an attorney's office. At the same time, Rob was having an affair with another woman, and Laura also happened to be pregnant. Rob and Laura eventually break up, which sets off most of the plot to the novel. Rob still owes Laura a lot of money. Grendel is a savage beast who eats people. For approx 12 years, Grendel has been eating the Danes of Hrothgar's kingdom. From that, it's easy to see that Grendel is a jerk. Both, however, are antiheros, rather than villains. The books both explain why Rob and Grendel are this way. Isolation is a big factor in to why the characters act the way they do. Rob has always felt isolated and lonely, due to the rejection that he has dealed with throughout his life with women. After Laura, Rob is even more bitter towards people. He really isn't close to anyone. The only people that he spends time with are the store clerks that work with him, and a few college friends that he rarely sees, and Marie. On his birthday, he gets a last minute get together at a pub, and only 4 people show up. Rob is most likely bitter towards people because he isn't close to anyone. He has dealt with rejection all his life, and the last thing he wants to do is try to become closer with someone else. Grendel is similar because of the way the Dane's treated him. Grendel wonders the wilderness alone, frusterated with life and all its mysteries, and is always asking why he is who he is. The Danes give him no chance to interact peacefully with them and attack him when they first see him. Grendel has no choice but to defend himself. This leads to Grendel's anger with the Danes and his hatred towards their worldview. Over time, he begins to despise humanity, and makes them his enemy. The fact that both Rob and Grendel deal with injustices through negative actions towards people, makes them sort of antiheroes (Rob is more an antihero than Grendel). They both want to have a connection to someone. They are lonely, and have dealt with isolation and have no one to really be there for them. They deal with this through hatred and bitterness, and violence and eating in Grendel's case.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Truth in Bookz
In order to be non-fiction, a novel should have no fiction in it. Fiction is defined as the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration. So if there is anything untrue or imaginary in a non-fiction novel, then it is no longer non-fiction because there is fiction in it.
I don't think half-truths are really acceptable. Obviously a memoir is the author's own account of their own events, but the author should at least be able to back up everything that they include, otherwise they could write that they had the ability to turn into a baby seal as a child, still calling their work with an obvious fictional element a memoir. Even if there is one untrue event in the novel, like baby seal morphing, then it shouldn't be a memoir, or non-fiction. Authors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want about their life and let people eat is up as truth. It's unfair.
I do not think there needs to be a line between genres, because genres typecast and categorize authors and novels too much. When it comes to ficion vs. non-fiction, I think that the line is quite clear anyway. If everything in the novel is true and happened, then it's non-fiction, because it contains no fiction. If there is something fictional in the book, then it becomes fiction.
I don't think half-truths are really acceptable. Obviously a memoir is the author's own account of their own events, but the author should at least be able to back up everything that they include, otherwise they could write that they had the ability to turn into a baby seal as a child, still calling their work with an obvious fictional element a memoir. Even if there is one untrue event in the novel, like baby seal morphing, then it shouldn't be a memoir, or non-fiction. Authors shouldn't be able to say whatever they want about their life and let people eat is up as truth. It's unfair.
I do not think there needs to be a line between genres, because genres typecast and categorize authors and novels too much. When it comes to ficion vs. non-fiction, I think that the line is quite clear anyway. If everything in the novel is true and happened, then it's non-fiction, because it contains no fiction. If there is something fictional in the book, then it becomes fiction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)