21st Century Literature discussion

For those who have finished the book and are eager to discuss, let the discussion begin!

The book raised some questions for me that I'll throw out as starters. Please throw yours into the pot as well --

1. Are individuals "formed by" their first languages?
2. What does it mean to have an aesthetic vs a moral view of the world?
3. What does it mean to live life as a narrative?
4. Are e-mail (or online) relationships different than face-to-face relationships?

I am relating the first question to The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which to my understanding is still being debated. I have read or heard arguments from both sides and don't feel I have enough knowledge to form my own conclusion, but Batuman seemed to belive in the theory based on interviews.

For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguis...
https://www.guernicamag.com/elif-batu...

This review helps some of the Turkish linguistic elements in the novel and I think the part on "inferential tense" is interesting in relation to some of the above questions.

https://bosphorusreview.com/review-th...

My problem with linguistics is that it shares the same problem with other disciplines that had large growth in the twentieth century, Everyone was inventing jargon that had little meaning except to those who were graduate level in the field.

Thank you Sam for the links. All, especially the Turkish review, were helpful for my appreciation of what the author was doing. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has me considering the use of gender in language. I think that came up in the book and we learn that Turkish is genderless. I then started thinking about gender in languages like Spanish, where items have gender, and English, where it is the pronouns that identify gender and wondered if one's primary language makes it easier or harder to think outside a two-gender universe. Which led to thinking about the predominant two-party political systems like in the US/UK and multi-party systems in the EU. I've never studied linguistics but suspect I could go down a rabbit hole with it.

We in the last third of the month and this whole book thread is woefully lacking in commentary! What did you all think of the book as a whole? What did you enjoy most or hate worst?

Perhaps this comment will not be deep enough or thoughtful enough for this crowd, but I will pipe up . . . not on any of the questions above, but on the relationships she forms. Ivan. He made me incredibly uncomfortable and angry, especially in Part I, but even also in Part II. Some of his comments struck me as very troubling, as if he was secretly (or not so secretly) a sadist. (Who muses about throwing animals in water?) And occasionally something bad happens to our narrator, and Ivan says "I did not do that to you" (or "not on purpose"), or something along those lines, in a way that makes it clear to me that he *would* have, that he *is* that kind of person.

The author did an excellent job drawing his character, and when I saw the narrator tolerate Rozsa's quirky aggressiveness, I understood better her inability to see Ivan for what (I think) he was, which is to say a predatory jerk.

Or maybe I am being too hard on him?

Are email relationships different from personal relationships? I was always a letter writer, and I did form some friendships first by letter. The transition to real life seems, to me, to be one of making the friendship anew. But what did Selin and Ivan even have, when they were emailing? He was just playing around. No, it's worse, he's experimenting, he's toying. A relationship?

He aggravated me.

I thought both Selin and Ivan very immature and it seemed neither had much experience with members of the opposite sex. I thus attributed Ivan's behavior to ignorance of social etiquette and chose to forgive inappropriate speech and actions. Otherwise, I would have probably DNF'd since it was aggravating. I don't know if any have read If an Egyptian Cannot Speak English by Noor Naga, but it presents a similar relationship, with a much more misogynistic male. The similarity is that the narrator is far less bothered by the misogyny than the reader and it makes we think that perhaps, as readers, our judgements of characters interferes with our evaluation of works.

Good points Erika and Sam. I think email and letter relationships do have similarities. Moving them to person to person is going to make for change. It is so hard to convey meaning without body language. And Ivan was a bit on the misogynistic side. Luckily he never pushed the relationship and it should just fade away as Ivan moves on to California for graduate school. It was a relationship that could have gone in an entirely different direction, but that doesn’t seem to have been the author’s intent.

So much of what Ivan did or felt or said could be misunderstood because of the medium. I agree they are immature but she is a college freshman and he is a very troubled person to whom she was drawn. Both are struggling to figure out not so much what they want to be but how they want to be in the world. What I liked best about the book was the humor of some of the things Selin said and did--like buying the big black coat. I did find myself hurrying through much of it because I felt it was tedious at times.

Both are immature for sure. Ivan is, I think, more controlling. Selin did a lot of stupid things, which is not atypical for a college freshman away from home for the first time who has not spent much time in the world.

I remain curious about what it means to have an aesthetic vs a moral view of the world and what it means to live life as a narrative.

I'm enjoying following this but I'm stalled on my re-read, when I read it before it was mostly on trains and I think I skimmed over the sections that dragged in the middle but this time round I've been focusing on it more and it's not working so well!

Alwynne, good to hear from you! Always a letdown when a reread makes you wonder about a book that worked well on first read. What did worked for you on your first read?

First, kudos to Linda for moderating the discussion and working to draw out our thoughts on the novel. I have been absorbed with trying to finish the Kirkus, the Giller, the NBA, and the Baillee-Gifford shortlists and didn't want to put time into a reread just now, so my thoughts have been based on memories, which aren't very reliable any more. What I enjoyed most about this book was that it was an early effort from an author who loves literature and I think there was a tentativeness in the writing that matched both the experience of the narrator and the experience of the author. I think we feel a warmth for authors in early efforts that project that tentativeness, just as we feel watching someone learning to ride a bicycle as we see the concentration, caution, and carefulness in their approach. I look forward to reading Either/Or and any other in the series and reassessing the books as a whole.

Thanks Sam.

And thanks to everyone who participated. There's still a couple of days to go, and the thread will still be active after the month is over, so do not hesitate to comment whenever you read the book or if you something occurs to you at any time.

I am running late with this one but expect to finish later tonight and will say more then.

Looking forward to your comments, Hugh!