AP Literature: Everything is Illuminated discussion

I find the structure of the book completely fascinating, the fact that the novel is divided into several parts makes it difficult and challenging. The letter, the actual story, the past and the legend are all very interesting but if I had to pick my favorite part of the novel I would honestly had to say that it is the letters that Alex sends to Jhonattan, I think that these letters are funny in a rally smart and sarcastic way

I still have a question about the story. I dont really understand the reazon of the legend of Brod to me it just seems like something that is absolutely unnecessary. Am I the only one that feels this way????

What makes these letters so appealing? What strategies does JSF employ to give them an emotional depth?

I enjoy the letters as well but I think the main reason why they are so entertaining is because you get the chance to contrast the real Alex with the Alex he has laboriously created to make himself sound and look better. I have to say that I find the character to be rather comical anyway. He manages to come up with critiques of ironic nature and does so in a "second language" (A very ingenious technique used by the author). Another thing that caught my attention was the contrast between the direct and careless demands that Alex directs to Jonathan and the subtle innuendos that make me think he's acting as if he knew less than he actually does; using this to make fun of things, of Jonathan and of situations in general. For example when he says, "Is this why you think you are chosen by God, because only you can understand the funnies that you make about yourself? I have one small query about this section, which is do you know that many of the names you exploit are not truthful names for Ukraine? Yankel is a name I have heard of, and so is Hannah, but the rest are very strange. Did you invent them? There were many mishaps like this, I will inform you. Are you being a humorous writer here, or an uninformed one?" (J. Safran Foer 25) he left me thinking of what his purpose was in doing so. Was this genuine naïveness, is this some sort of irony or was he just trying to be funny?
Alike Mariana Calle, in regards to the Legend of Brod, I don't understand the purpose of it, but as a guess I'd say the author was over-contextualizing (most likely on purpose) and it will be important further into the story.
-Manuela Navarro (APB1)

So far, this is the most interesting discussion on any board. Keep it up.

I believe that the structure of the book is challenging to understand if you don’t have a previous knowledge about the story and the things that are going on through it. Before reading the book, I decided to see the movie fist so I could fly through the book without comprehension problems. The most entertaining and funny parts of the book are the letters that Alex writes to Jon-Fen, (that’s the way he calls him sometimes in the book). Every time that I read those letters I read them with Alex’s accent and I feel really connected with him and with his personality. He is always talking about himself and his “premium” look that drives Ukrainian girls crazy. I believe that the author’s purpose by portraying Alex character as a person, who tries to talk in English and the way he writes it, was very accurate for the book because it makes readers understand his role of a Ukrainian translator making them to read as if they were hearing Alex speak. I also want to focus on the relationship that Alex has with his grandfather. He doesn’t know a lot of things about the past of his family and neither his grandfather’s. Alex is always asking him questions about his life at war but his grandfather never answers. I could also notice that his grandfather felt empathy for Jonathan because he wants to find Augustine too, as if he already knew her from before. ““He is a good boy,” Grandfather said. I could not perceive if he was inquiring me or tutoring me. “He seems good,” I said. Grandfather moved his hand over his face, which had become covered with hairs during the day. It was only then that I noticed that his hands were still shaking, that they had been shaking all day. “We should try very inflexibly to help him.” “We should,” I said. “I would like very much to find Augustine,” he said. “So would I.”” (J. Safran Foer 73). The author could be foreshadowing an event in which Alex is about to discover something about his grandfather’s past. I am really enjoying reading this book because it has brought me an emotional connection with it and yesterday I even cried when the Kolker (Brod’s husband) died. In regards to previews comments, I believe that the author’s purpose of including Brod’s legend in the book was to explain Jonathan’s past because she is his great-great-great-great-great-grandmother. I believe that he wants to continue to recount his family history until he gets to his grandfather’s past, in which the story and the fact of finding Augustine is based on.

Valentina Balcazar

This question is for the ones who haven’t seen the movie jet or haven’t finished the book:
What do you think that Alex’s grandfather was doing while Europe was facing WWII? Why do you think that is he hiding this from Alex and from the rest of the family? Why do you think that did he became emotional when he saw Augustine picture?
P.S: If you haven’t seen the movie, don’t see it now because it will ruin the end of the book.

Valentina Balcazar

I think that the letters are very appealing to us because we can feel how bad Alex is trying to impress Jhonattan.The author shows us in the Alex written chapter a guy that at the beginning of the book is just all about girls and leaving to america, he is pretension and want to portrait himself as the best their is . Then as the books starts getting into the letters we see and Alex who is starting to become an intellectual , who clearly want someones approval and who has grown as a character . So for us as readers I think that this is interesting because it makes us wonder what happened for him to change into this more mature man . It makes us connect more with the story. I think the letters are also a symbol for the connection that Alex and Jhonattan have . They don't really get to know each other well until the letters start happening . We can also see the emotional level in the letters because they make Alex stronger as he writes them , and as he starts being more and more truthful in all of them we and Alex himself get to really discover who this character really is. We can start to uncover his insecurities , his situation in a country were he does not want to be and his true human weaknesses and defects.
att : DANIELA ARANGO

As I started reading the book,I noticed that the shift from when Alex is writing, then Jonathan and then the actual author of the book "Everything is Iluminated" was very confusing. We would see how Alex (also called Jonathan Safran Foer since he changed his name) is narrating a story that starts with him telling us what bothers him (that his father "dubs" him Shapka), all of the girls he gets and the nightclubs he goes to. I also find very rare the way he introduces his grandfather's "bitch" which makes us think is a whore and when we keep reading we realize it's a dog. We can see he's trying his best to write in english but in most cases he ends up saying everything wrongly and funny. The author shifts from Alex's point of view to the letters he sends to Jonathan Safran Foer a.k.a the story's hero. He also shifts to the story the hero's writing which at first might seem sort of confusing but as we get used to his writing structure it's very appealing to us and it's also very intertaining.

MARIANA VELASQUEZ TORO

I find the structure of the book mind blowing. The complexity adds so much depth to the story and I think that the author is a genius for making up so many random things. The book offers layers of depth and one leads to the next and it leads to the next. The most interesting thing I find so far is how the different stories interconnect and make one whole story. One cannot simply ignore the troubles that arise while one reads because it is important to pause and analyze what is happening in the story or otherwise one will loose the delicate string that ties everything together. One key element that clarifies everything is when Alex is speaking. He has a very characteristic personality in which he always exalts his personality.
MANUELA RESTREPO

Indeed the structure of the story is not similar to anything I had ever read. It is the first time I read a book in which past, present, and future are the "protagonists" at the same time. At first, I found it extremely confusing to identify which time was which - I could not tell easily what was happening and what had already happened. I began to feel so unsure of what was actually going on when the letters appeared. When the correspondance showed up in the book I was afraid because I felt I was loosing track of the story, that I might be understanding things incorrectly. Hence, I discussed it with some classmates and they explained to me that there were several events, from different times, being presented in the book contemporarily. Also, Daniela Arango's post (which is actually in the "style" section) explaining the different times - that the past was when the story of the baby found in the water took place, that the present is when Alex and the hero meet for the heritage tour, and that the present is when the hero is writing a book and Alex and the hero are writing letters to each other - was very useful to help me clarify the different stories being presented in the book. The fact that three times are presented simultanously in the book make it to be a bit confusing, making it necessary that one is vey attentive while reading and to stop and reflect about what is being told in order to understand what has happened, is ocurring, and will occur later on.
-APB3 Camila Vasquez

I still have the question about the story of Brod, I really think that this story is NOT necessary! If someone sees the relevance in this part of the story I would be happy to hear/ read the posts. The fact that the story is complicated makes it much more interesting to the eyes of the reader!!! Every time I start reading one of Alex letters I LOL about it he is so expressive he cracks me up! Hey I have a peculiar question does any one besides me find a little strange that women fid Jhonattans gradthers dead arm attractive??? JUST ASKING

I Understand the sturcture but it took me some time. However i think that is the magic of it. It is obvious that the author wants the reader to be confused, bewildered, and wants him to be wondering about what is underneath it all. I think that that is what is most entretaining of the whole book is the puzzle that it is. We are always trying to interpret and to dig for clues in the text that give us something more than we can see. However the text itself resolves into being a mixture between complex and simple. Its complexity is simple, once you understand it you love it and you want to keep reading it. The fact that it is three stories in one adds a 3D shape and is the book that jumps at you. The only things that might be confusing after you get the structure is what is true and what is not. Since Alex is so immature i get the feeling that i cant trust him and that somehow not everything he says is true. This may lead up to something in the end when we finish the story because i believe that it might be some part of the structure.

Laura Agudelo

I must agree with Camila and with Laura. Time is confusing and one must always pay attention in order to follow the string of what is happening. I, alone could not solve the problem and i needed the book club we had in class. I cannot deny that when i arrived to the Second chapter (where the carriage was in the water) I was very discouraged because i didn´t understand what was happening anywhere. However as i continued and as we clarified issues in class everything was much easier to understand. I must also agree with Laura´s "its complexity is simple". I think that it is simple because it seems much harder to grasp than what it actually is and once you understand the structure of the story, nothing will stop you from reading more and more. Yet I still wonder what the author´s purpose was.... What do you think is Jonathan´s purpose by introducing himself as a character in the story? Do you think that it has a direct relationship with the structure of the story?

APB3- Manuela Restrepo

I still find the structure very challenging and it makes me very mad. The constant shifting of scenarios doesn't let me concentrate on the importance of each story individually nor the thread that pulls them all together. Alike Mariana Calle, I don't understand what the 'story of Brod' has to do with anything else. But not all is terrible. Regarding the structure of each individual chapter I would have to mention that there is a great variation. The change of narrator changes the structure completely because of differences in vocabulary (but that is more related to style) and also notably in the composition of paragraphs and the way either Jonathan, Alex (when speaking to Jonathan) or Alex (when translating) [If I'm getting this right, because like I said I'm still somewhat confused] get their messages through to whoever their audience is. A clear example of this is the detailed introduction that Alex gives of each character belonging to his portion of the story, while you get to know the characters in Jonathan's stories only through their actions and words. If I'm not much mistaken, these versions of characterization are called direct and indirect and they create a huge contrast when you go from chapter to chapter. There is also a lot more 'apostrophes' in Jonathan's narration, indicating more dialogue and in my opinion, a more interactive way of story telling. When the speaker is Alex, the text becomes more monotonous (without all the italics and BOLD letters and characters and events that are part of Jonathan's) even though he (and I'm not sure if 'he' in this case should be thought of as the character or the author) is very ironic and frequently funny. Alluding to Manuela Restrepo's question on why Jonathan Safran Foer is a protagonist in his own story, I think it adds a sort of spice to the novel but it is mainly a means by which the author catches the attention of the reader, messing with his sense of reality (something he also attempts to do with all of the scene and time shifts)
-Malena APB1

The structure is definitely (and intentionally challenging). In our post-modern writing world (Godot and beyond), remember that many writers want to prevent a reader from getting lost in the story. They want the reader to have to be an active participant, not a passive sponge. With this in mind, what might JSF be doing with structure? This might also be a clue as to why he's inserted himself, the author, into the story.

On my last thoughts of the story, I think that i have fallen more in love with the structure. Personally, the thing that i like MOST about the story is the structure because it is what MAKES the novel. So many different stories and so many different events sum up to make the masterpiece that "Everything is illuminated" really is. Added to the overall structure of the story, i really like the ending and how it connected to the title because in the town of Brod, everything is suddenly illuminated and people are blinded by the light. It turns out that this illumination is the light that comes from the nazis´bombs. They are being bombed and they run to the water, where they all drown. I think that i can tie this to the structure because of is genius connection. It is evident that the author does not loose track of his style or the impact that he wants to create on the reader based on the structure at all. Im surprised at how it ends in death and suicide, but its the way that it had to end because JSF has such a unique style that i doubted it would end happily.
-Manuela Restrepo
APB3