Sunday, February 1, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Untitled
Okay, so I've started and immersed in the book. It’s an eventful journey so far. I think she has a bit more humor in this book which makes it a little better. But I still see some similar pattern as I saw in the first book. At the end of the chapter, she goes into the future saying the character doesn’t know it yet but it will happen, and the character is “innocent” to the future and happy.
Other than that, she uses darker colors now for her paintings. It’s because of the subject she’s writing about, I don’t think she wanted to use bright colors when painting about wars and the hard times in her father’s life.
Other than that, she uses darker colors now for her paintings. It’s because of the subject she’s writing about, I don’t think she wanted to use bright colors when painting about wars and the hard times in her father’s life.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A New Beginning
So, I've started the second book, The Odyssey of a Manchurian, which, from what I've heard, is about her father's, Baba's journey, after WWII. To be honest, I've dreaded starting the book because we (the first book and I) didn't get along so well before.
However, I've started the second book and so far in, I don't hate it. Her style is still the same:
1. Lots of onomatopoeia (I can never spell that right)
2. Lots of metaphors
3. Three different stories in one chapter
4. Inserts herself ("I") to some part of the story
5. Has a storytelling-like tone
6. Switching third-person, first-person thoughts
Other than that, I find myself relating to some of the stories that she told which is interesting. However, even though I am relating to it, it's kind of boring since it's like "been there, done that" kind of thing for me.
Her story, or rather, Baba's story is interesting now that I'm only reading for content, not scrutinizing for details. Despite just reading and not really paying attention to her rhetorical strategies, I find myself noticing more strategies (if that makes any sense to you).
At some point, I question if it's really nonfiction, if Yang fabricated some details up to make the story goes smoother. I know that the best nonfiction is if it reads like fiction. However, the book is based on her father's stories after all, and it's a story nonetheless. But at some part, I feel as though Baba himself wouldn't know the details but Yang put that detail in the book. For example, what the monk did after Baba's mom put a garlic-thing-necklace on a statue's neck (they ate it). If he wasn't there, how would he know they ate it? Also, Yang has quotes that are in between quotation marks but I know that those are not exact quotes since a person wouldn't remember exactly what someone said.
Anyways, sorry for being on haitus for so long, like I said, I dreaded starting the second book. But now, I actually enjoy it because I know most of the stuff that she's talking about. I'll update frequently from now on.
However, I've started the second book and so far in, I don't hate it. Her style is still the same:
1. Lots of onomatopoeia (I can never spell that right)
2. Lots of metaphors
3. Three different stories in one chapter
4. Inserts herself ("I") to some part of the story
5. Has a storytelling-like tone
6. Switching third-person, first-person thoughts
Other than that, I find myself relating to some of the stories that she told which is interesting. However, even though I am relating to it, it's kind of boring since it's like "been there, done that" kind of thing for me.
Her story, or rather, Baba's story is interesting now that I'm only reading for content, not scrutinizing for details. Despite just reading and not really paying attention to her rhetorical strategies, I find myself noticing more strategies (if that makes any sense to you).
At some point, I question if it's really nonfiction, if Yang fabricated some details up to make the story goes smoother. I know that the best nonfiction is if it reads like fiction. However, the book is based on her father's stories after all, and it's a story nonetheless. But at some part, I feel as though Baba himself wouldn't know the details but Yang put that detail in the book. For example, what the monk did after Baba's mom put a garlic-thing-necklace on a statue's neck (they ate it). If he wasn't there, how would he know they ate it? Also, Yang has quotes that are in between quotation marks but I know that those are not exact quotes since a person wouldn't remember exactly what someone said.
Anyways, sorry for being on haitus for so long, like I said, I dreaded starting the second book. But now, I actually enjoy it because I know most of the stuff that she's talking about. I'll update frequently from now on.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Finally...
I would have updated my blog earlier but my internet was giving me a hard time, so here it is.
I must admit, I'm didn't do as much reading for the research as I wanted to but I did read other books. (This might be irrelevant, but...). One of which was Abarat, by Clive Barker and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Abarat and Baba are similar since the authors always include an illustration in the beginning of the chapter. In reading Abarat, I discover aspects about Baba that I didn't notice before, or I did but didn't pay much attention to it.
I got frustrated before because I thought the book was one continuous story (I read too many fiction). What Yang is actually doing is telling one story per chapter. Yay, problem solved, I'm actually enjoying the book now.
As for what techniques Yang uses, well, that's an easy answer. Tons and tons of figurative language. She takes detours instead of the straight road. For an example, she doesn't say:
He is sixty-year-old.
In Yang's language, it's:
"Old Guo, who had weathered over sixty winters, could not weather the betrayal of his son."
What I also noticed is that she chooses words that go with what is going on in the scene. In this case, "weather."
Another example:
"When the bottles [bombs] landed in their pigsties and flung their animals to swine heaven, knowledge exploded upon them."
"exploded" goes with the bombs.
Yang uses words that are related with each other in different context constantly throughout the book.
Yang also establishes a mellow tone that create a bed-time-story-telling voice. Even when the scene is morbid (a wolf killed a child), she makes it seem...unmorbid.
Anyways, Happy New Year (even though it's a little late)!
I must admit, I'm didn't do as much reading for the research as I wanted to but I did read other books. (This might be irrelevant, but...). One of which was Abarat, by Clive Barker and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Abarat and Baba are similar since the authors always include an illustration in the beginning of the chapter. In reading Abarat, I discover aspects about Baba that I didn't notice before, or I did but didn't pay much attention to it.
I got frustrated before because I thought the book was one continuous story (I read too many fiction). What Yang is actually doing is telling one story per chapter. Yay, problem solved, I'm actually enjoying the book now.
As for what techniques Yang uses, well, that's an easy answer. Tons and tons of figurative language. She takes detours instead of the straight road. For an example, she doesn't say:
He is sixty-year-old.
In Yang's language, it's:
"Old Guo, who had weathered over sixty winters, could not weather the betrayal of his son."
What I also noticed is that she chooses words that go with what is going on in the scene. In this case, "weather."
Another example:
"When the bottles [bombs] landed in their pigsties and flung their animals to swine heaven, knowledge exploded upon them."
"exploded" goes with the bombs.
Yang uses words that are related with each other in different context constantly throughout the book.
Yang also establishes a mellow tone that create a bed-time-story-telling voice. Even when the scene is morbid (a wolf killed a child), she makes it seem...unmorbid.
Anyways, Happy New Year (even though it's a little late)!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
