21st Century Literature discussion

I read the George section ("camera") second. I thought it was well done, but liked "eyes" a bit better, after I got into it. Picking up on the duality themes, I found myself having sympathy and empathy for George as she learns to deal with the after by remembering (and I think, re-remembering) the past.

I suspect the author may have been instrumental in getting the publishers to do the books in the fashion they were done, as it seems to be part of what she is experimenting with in this book. It is also part of the experience for the reader, especially with the ability of those starting with different parts to share their experiences.

Linda wrote: "...especially with the ability of those starting with different parts to share their experiences."

The ability to share is crucial here. I bought the book well before I joined any groups on GR, and there's a good chance I would never have realised there are two versions. It only works if the reader is part of a community, real or virtual.

Lagullande wrote: "... there's a good chance I would never have realised there are two versions. ."

Agreed. It's only because of this discussion thread that I knew there were two versions. My version had the Camera/George part second and I liked being able to look back on del Cossa's section as well as slowly realize what she had been seing while observing George.

This book must be such a different experience depending on which part you started (and, thus, ended) with. I connected much more with the George character, so I liked that my copy ended with her. But it would have been a much different read if I tried to experience del Cossa having first seen where her work ended up and the impact it had upon the future. I would have been sort of seeing her through the eyes of George and her mother.

For those who started with the George part, how soon into reading the del Cossa part did you realize the child was the artist whose work George and her mother admired?

I started with George first. Once I got to the artist's part, I realized quickly what was going on, but only because I started with George. I'm curious whether readers who started with the artist first had any trouble staying engaged in the beginning. It seemed rather opaque.

But to have a completely different experience with the characters and story than another reader is the whole point, right?

I started with del Cossa, and I was confused. If I had it to do over, I would start with George.

I finished the book today and think I enjoyed both parts equally. I do find George's story easier to follow and think the whole book would have made more sense to me if I'd read this first (or at least that's what I'd like to think!).

I wonder if they were partly written in parallel.

If not, I suspect that they were very likely revised in parallel.

My version started with George's narrative, and I actually feel lucky. I would possibly either have given the book three stars or maybe even given up on it. George's version gives the feeling of direction and perspective, and it is definitely more relatable. It is easier to follow, and because of its carcass and solid foundation, the other part made more sense. I believe George's part is self-sufficient and would have been published as stand-alone novelette.

I really enjoyed this part - it is enigmatic, insightful, sad, but also optimistic. It is a beautifully told coming-of-age story, a certain bildungsroman/ novella, and George's maturity is accelerated by her loss, but also by her gain. She finally rediscovers and reconnects emotionally with her father and finds peace. I really enjoyed her questioning present and past, and the mysteires her part offers.

Zulfiya wrote: "My version started with George's narrative, and I actually feel lucky. I would possibly either have given the book three stars or maybe even given up on it. George's version gives the feeling of di..."

Interesting. I started with del Cossa and, once into the story of the painter, loved it. I did not like the George part as much. I agree that the George part could be considered a stand-alone novella, but I think the del Cossa part could have as well. They are like interlinked short stories, only here they would be inter-linked novellas! The obvious big difference from inter-linked stories is the very different writing styles.

It is truly amazing how one and the same book works differently for different readers. Indeed, a book is a literary perpetuum mobile that incessantly generates different distinct meanings and emotions.