Cristina Diaz (Part I) Everything is illuminated now that we have reached the end of Foer’s novel. I would like to state that although confusing and a bit complicated at first; the novel has a way of unfolding itself and tying everything in for its reader once we reach the end of it. Foer successfully incorporates many complex ideas, themes and symbols throughout the story; I will discuss some of my favorite found toward the end, since this is what this particular blog is concerned with. Near the end of the novel (I believe around chapter 30 or so) we read about the note that the Gypsy girl writes which unlike us, Safran never gets to read. This one worded note is vague but a definite symbol in the novel, “change”. It could be referring to many changes that are to come or that can potentially come, yet do not, since Safran is left unaware of this as the note is blown away, due to the gust of wind and eventually burns, more wood for the fire, if you will. Thus the note in itself is a form of illumination. As a reader I was definitely waiting for “The first blast and then love 1941”! Finally after 2,700 sexual encounters our poor Safran experiences an orgasm; simultaneously with the blowing of the bombs in a nearby shtetl. From this experience he concludes that it must be love. I must admit I was waiting anxiously to see some emotion from this character. I truly enjoyed reading about this particular experience. Memory receives a great amount of attention at the end of the novel. This is no surprise since we are reading Jewish Literature; which usually ties in to the Holocaust, now only a distant memory (thankfully). One of my favorite lines in the novel, “memory took the place of terror.” I believe this is applicable to the experiences of the Holocaust from the Jewish community as a whole. I cannot help but see this not only happen to the townspeople of Trachimbrod but also to Vladek from Art Spiegelman’s Maus, for instance, where the only thing left of the experience is the written word which stems from the memory . This is something I will definitely take from this course; Jewish Literature is extremely tied to memories. Unfortunately the townspeople reached a point where they were so concerned with remembering that they seized to create new memories for themselves (I believe Jonathan Safran Foer is attempting to highlight something here for Jews in general). Although this novel has a lot of fantastical elements I enjoyed how Foer gives you glimpses of reality and ties actual history into his fictional story. For instance, when he describes that the floats were poor and ugly in the 1942 festival due to the war and lack of supplies. We are able to see how war actually affects a town (even if it is a made up one in this case, he still drives the point home).
Yes, this novel was confusing, for a great chunk of the whole thing, and although everything is tied together at the end and the beauty of the stories can truly be appreciated, it took a while to get there. There were many time I found myself not wanting to continue the journey through time, so to speak, because I was constantly being thrown to some other aspect of a memory as you mention. There were constant questions, and gaps in the story that were being created and not answered or connected until much later in the story. The aspect of the novel that I found really moved the story along through its humor, were Alex’s letters to “The Hero.” I enjoyed the evolution of Alex as a character, and how the letters served to tie things together in the story within the story. Also, sort of like in Maus, the way that Spiegleman wrote Vladek with an accent in keeping the awkward diction was interesting because as the story progressed there was an evolution an also in the tone of his voice. The relationship between “The Hero” and Alex was intriguing and that evolution grasped me much more than did the ancestral story. I feel that this is because I took Alex to be another “side” so to speak of the author, a side he explored through writing this book. Being as to that the letters between the two of them were intended to be criticisms of each other’s work, it in essence is criticisms of his own work. So it was interesting to see the what he battled with in creating this novel. This aspect of the book reminded me of the part in Maus when Spiegleman has become overwhelmed by his own success and is now contemplating a movie based no the book, or when he is debating how to tell a story that is not his own and considers the criticisms others will have upon his decision to use anthropomorphized creatures, and other instances in which he too criticizes his own work in the making, yet we are reading the final product. Jonathan Safran Foer does this same thing is such an intricate and in some ways detached yet personal way that it is quite commendable and enjoyable to read the evolution.
Cristina Diaz (Part II) ( Both post are meant to be read together, I was forced to split them because the site wouldn't allow me to publish it together)
Lastly, we conclude the novel with a letter written by Grandfather; our first and last letter from him since it is a suicide note of sorts. It is interesting; how he decides to terminate his life not because he is unhappy (as he has lived unhappy for a great part of his life and is usually what leads people to commit suicide) instead he decides to terminate his life because he is completely content. Thus he is able to leave in peace and allow for the future generation to take control, Alex. This is also because Alex sends his father on his way, telling him that Little Igor, his mother and himself will be fine without him. Grandfather supports Alex in this decision completely. I would venture to say that the most illuminated character at the end of the novel would have to be Grandfather; since he has terminated his own life in complete happiness and peace. Indeed a well thought out work of art; the novel begins and ends with death something which caught my attention and forced me to praise Foer as a writer even more than I had at the commencement of reading this novel. In the beginning Trachim B is killed in an accident and becomes a legend of sorts from here the festivities and traditions within the town are born. Similarly at the end Grandfather kills himself so that Alex can be the sole leader of the household. From start to finish Foer is ingeniously demonstrating how something must end, in order for new beginnings to take precedence. Likewise, with the end of this novel we are able to stand tall, and look toward new beginnings, Hooray Foer!
Christina, I really liked the specific moments at the end of the novel you included. To me the "change" note meant a lot of different things before it came what you said was an "illumination". I feel like the change was the change a jewish person makes when they "discover" themselves or their purpose. Much like many of the other novels and short stories we have read, the characters change when they figure out who they really are or what their purpose is. Their change may not be in themselves, it could also be with their actions. That's what this note symbolized to me. I think it was also a notice to the reader that change had taken place; a somewhat in your face "just to let you know" change has occurred warning.
Later in the story, it is interesting to me that Safran points out that Johnathan's family is a coward. That they give up happiness and love for something so "trivial" such as culture and tradition. Yet, Safran doesn't seem to have much happiness, love, or tradition in his life. Only sadness. This story is extremely depressing to me. It seems to me that this journey was somewhat a disappointment other than revealing the grandfather's past and unveiling it to future generations. However, if I was the grandfather and I revealed the truth, I would feel liberated. I wouldn't feel as selfish to kill myself after having lived so such an old age. This book left me overall depressed and overall the author's style, tone, and changing point-of views are a stroke of genius. I really don't see where he gets off to write this type of novel with such little first hand experience in the holocaust. I kind of enjoyed the JOURNEY of the story, but I somewhat resent the author now for the ending.
Although the path of reading Everything is Illuminated has been a confusing one I liked the outcome of the novel. I liked how a novel that I had never come across before challenged me. The whole idea of two narratives within a narrative was pure genius. There were a total of 3 kinds of chapters, Alex’s novel, Jonathan’s novel and Alex’s letters to Jonathan. The letters from Alex to Jonathan were probably my favorite part of the story. The letters were what give the reader the inside look as to who Alex was and the interworking of his character. The character of Alex really grew throughout the story. He started off as a man who could hardly speak English or even use the proper words in a sentence. As the story went on the readers realized Alex removed his fake mask and he finally decided to be himself. The promiscuous Alex with all the girls and all the nicknames couldn’t be far enough from the truth as to who the real Alex was. I believed Alex was trying to impress Jonathan and himself. He wanted to escape his reality and Jonathan helped him. Jonathan helped Alex become a writer and become a man. The part where Jonathan wrote the excerpt about Alex standing up to his father was what gave Alex the push he needed to do just that. The letters were so interesting because Jonathan Safran Foer made me really think this Alex character was a real person who helped write this book. The reality of it was Jonathan did travel to the Ukraine, but no one really knew if he met a man named Alex or someone that he met set the stage for Foer’s character in the novel. It was interesting how Jonathan made two characters from two different walks of life evolve to become similar at the end of the story. Alex was the grandson of a perpetrator while Jonathan was the grandson of a victim. The reality of the story was that Jonathan the character had no clue what his grandfather was. Jonathan wrote the novel to piece together his lost family history. Jonathan portrayed post memory. He never endured nor experienced the Holocaust and neither did his parents. He was a third generation survivor. It was so interesting how the horrific events of the Holocaust were passed down generations. The trauma from one generation was so significant that those down the family line could still “feel” the pain and trauma that their relatives went through.
I agree with Erika, after being confused for the most part of the first half of the book, I have gained a great deal of respect for Foer (really wanted to say that) and his ability to intertwine the two narratives and multitude of letters into one novel. The scope of the novel is massive which was the basis of much of my initial confusion. After our class discussion I gained a clearer picture of what was going on and the imagination used by Jonathan when recreating the past. I too grew a bond to the characters, especially Alex and his progression throughout the novel. He introduced himself in the novel, in my opinion, as a crazy foreigner begging for attention and towards the end he has completely redefined himself and finally stood up to his father. I assumed that it was only a matter of time before Alex lost his cool and demanded change. The Holocaust had a huge influence on people all around the world and from this novel we can see that the speculation of it continues through the generations. I wished that Grandfather did not commit suicide in the novel because I did not see the need for it. Now I feel like the hunt for "Augustine" has led to his ill fate. In all, this novel has truly grown on me and I am glad that it was in our syllabus.
Ginny Renas I agree with Erika that Everything is Illuminated is definitely a confusing read. With this being said, that’s what I grew to love about this novel. I don’t think I could convince any of my friends or family to read this book if I explained to them what it was about. At first I was frustrated that Spencer didn’t give us any information about this book before we started reading it. However, after reading it I’m really glad he didn’t. I would never think a book with magical realism would spark my interest. Frankly, I thought I hated it. This novels quality to make me question a lot of my comprehension of each chapter is what I started to really learn to appreciate. Every time I took a break from reading the book I would think, “who the heck could come up with this”. I went into the novel thinking it was crazy and turned the last page wondering how on earth someone could be this intelligent and crafty to publish something so amazing. I keep asking family and friends if they have ever read this book and I haven’t run into anyone else, other than this class, who has. It’s such a hard book to convince people to read because how in the world do you go about explaining it to someone? You can’t. You just have to read it yourself. This has definitely become one of my favorite books of all time and I’m not sure if it’s socially acceptable to put in writing considering I might be branding myself “crazy”.
I was also really confused when first reading the novel, but despite that I enjoyed it. I also found the grwoth of Alex interesting and the letters do reveal this. The letters also show the grwoing relationship between Alex and Jonathan. As you mentioned the author wrote himself into the book and did in fact go on a trip to the Ukkraine, but if he met a man or knew someone like Alex is unclear. I personally feel that Alex is a creation of Jonathan. The character Jonathan in the novel was recreating a whole history of his great grandmother and was even writing scenes in his diary of Alex, such as the one where Alex stands up to his father. As we have talked about in class the book wants the reader to be aware of the writing. I think that scene where Alex is reading Jonanthan's diary can be linked to Maus where the reader can actually see Art writing the book. It is in that instant when Alex is reading the diary that Alex becomes likes us and is physically reading Jonanthan's writing. I think that is also why there is never letters from Jonathan because the whole book essentially acts as a letter to it's reader. Ok the last thing I wanted to touch on is that I also think that Jonanthan has created and written a character like Alex into the novel was because of the reconciliation aspect. We have also talked about how these two people who are products of the horrors of the holocaust, where Jonanthan's family were victims and Alex's family have helped it happen It seems like these two should be enemies or at least Jonanthan should resent Alex, but that is not the case. These two are friends and are writing the story together, which brings a message of peace and unity in the novel It shows that there does not need to be this animosity between people. I really liked this book and will probably reread it again since I now know what is going on.
For my journal, I wanted to further analyze one of the sections of 'Everything is Illuminated' we discussed in class today that I found particularly intriguing. I chose the section that deals with Brod, Safron, and the hole in the wall of his exiled bedroom through which they communicate. Spencer asked us in class to analyze the text and what Foer was getting at when he said 'the hole is no void; the void exists around it' (Foer 139). In this passage, Foer broaches the paradox of 'absence being a presence' (Foer 135). This paradox is addressed previously when the hole is pictured as a loving connection point between Safron and Brod and also the only way he is able to receive medical treatment. What this paradox is clearly pointing out is that some times, the very fact that someone, or something, is not physically present can create an energy or "presence" in the room. The common human trait of wanting what you can't have surfaces. Because you miss/want something that's not there with you, the absence of said item causes it to manifest equally. Even if it's not in a physical way. Personally, I think this part where Brod cuts the hole out is a clear reiteration of this paradox. It points out that though the hole had a sad connotation to it, it was also the only thing allowing them to connect. When she makes a bead of the hole, the hole is explained to be what 'had separated her from the Kolker for those last months,' but I don't think that's what Foer wants us to see in regards to the hole's actual meaning (Foer 139). Sure, it was sad that Safron isolated himself, but without the hole. He and Brod would've been completely void of any communication without it, it wasn't the separating point. Yes, it's referred to in a negative light here, but just pages before it was seen as a beacon of hope. Foer says that they 'lived with the hole' and their time together through it 'felt precious' (135). Also, just sentences above, Foer describes the wall as being 'selfish' (135). The hole truly isn't a void, despite its lack of material composition. It is instead the only element containing worth. Accordingly, the wall surrounding it, which holds no possibility of interaction, is the void. Once cut out of the wall, the hole continues to make present something that is absent as it serves to be a physical memory for Brod of her final times with her husband.
While I did thoroughly enjoy this novel (maybe because I love the movie so much), I felt like the reoccurring themes throughout all of the pieces we’ve analyzed are just so similar, it was kind of like beating a dead horse. Don’t get me wrong, this is one of the only literature classes that I’ve taken that I’ve actually read all of the required novels on time and with pleasure. I guess I was just hoping that the ending to the book would kind of contain a different moral or attitude towards the Jewish culture than any of the other novels have. With that said, however, I did have a much easier time reading the second half of the book than I did the first. The characters finally grow into who they are, and I loved seeing the idea of change and growth play an important role instead of, much like in Maus, the characters being entrapped in this sort of spiral of a Jewish Holocaust curse sort of thing. Even though Foer never gets to read the letter from the gypsy that solely contained the word “change”, I feel that the letter affected everyone so heavily towards the end of the book. Foer changed into someone that could accept criticism and come to terms with most of that inner turmoil, while Alex transformed into a blossoming writer, someone that wasn’t afraid to be himself and no longer had to lie to Foer in order to be comfortable with who he was. While both of these characters show tremendous amounts of change throughout the novel, Grandfather is the character that intrigued me the most, and actually gave me insight into my own life. The transition from depressed to at least content was an inspiring one, and the fact that his life shifted from one that we, as the reader, thought must have been so filled with those voids to one that was completely free of any stress and responsibility at all really gave us an inside look as to what his life had been like. If one can commit suicide right after their life has taken a turn for the better, it shows true desire to never fall into that deep depression again, which makes me, as a fan of this character, ecstatic. We don’t see this empowerment in any of the other books, this wanting to actually be alright with the world after it has treated you so poorly. I guess this element is what made the ending to this book the most important to me, something the other novels showed a lack of.
Leslie Oxford I agree with Jasmine that Everything is Illuminated stayed very close to the ideas represented in the other Jewish literature covered in class. However, I do not believe this is due to any lack of creativity from Jonathan Safran Foer. In fact, I found this novel's approach to the aftermath of the Holocaust to be refreshingly original. The parallels of stories told from Alex and Jonathan, enabled for a barrier to be broken between Foer and the reader. Jasmine discussed her favorite character the Grandfather, stating how his committing suicide when his life begins to turn for the better represents a "desire to never fall into (a) deep depression again." Jasmine found this to be an optimistic point of view, because it allows for "empowerment". I disagree with this conclusion. I find that the Grandfather's suicide, points to the sad truth that he never overcomes his own traumatic experiences. He may have killed himself in order to evade future depression, but the very need to escape the idea of future depression points to the never ending cycle of pain. Foer does not provide a happy and colorful life; rather he paints a bleak picture for the future generations.
Alex Dishman There are a couple of things that I want to talk about in this blog dealing with Everything is Illuminated as well as how it relates back to the class. First, I thought that the novel was extremely difficult for me personally to follow (I don’t know if it was the same for any or every one else), and it took a lot of effort for me to actually sit down and read it. I am not saying that I disliked the book or didn’t enjoy it; I’m just saying that it took me a while to catch on to things and enjoy it because I was always so confused. I have to admit that after class on Monday, a lot of points were highlighted and my attitude going into the rest of the book was switched. While reading this book I was very set back because I just felt I wouldn’t catch on to it at all. With that being said, some of the main things that confused me were the different characters and the letters between Jonathan and Alex. After class on Monday when Mr. Wise thoroughly explained the plot and the story, the book was a little clearer to me and that is when I actually started to appreciate and understand the book a little more. I understood that the letters were because they were writing the story that we were reading, but some of the material just made it confusing for me. One random (and probably really stupid) thought that I had is why isn’t Alex listed as one of the authors? If that question is answered in the story or something, it just goes to show how little I actually understood of the book. I also wanted to mention the role that magic seemed to play in the novel. Although it was unrealistic at times (such as the blade in the head and then surviving as well as him becoming a sun dial), I thought that the magic was a nice little addition. I also thought that the situation with Alex and his father was extremely complex and that complexity added to the story. I think the entire scene that Jonathan created for Alex standing up to his father (and eventually leading him to do it) really added to the book. To conclude, I thought that the story was complex and difficult to understand but that reading it was beneficial. The insight that the book gave was a different insight than any other reading we did in the class. This wasn’t my favorite reading of the semester, but I think it was a good way to end the class. However, I do think that it might be a little too complicated to understand and follow.
I could not agree more with Alex. I found this book to be an extremely hard read, possibly the most difficult I have ever encountered. Class on monday, however, did help a lot in terms of grasping the plot, but I would still say I have a basic understanding at best. The letters written by Alex are still very confusing, as I've yet to work out their full contribution to the story.
Something I more or less understand but was confused by was the Grandfather's suicide. It was great to see his transformation from an old bitter man to what we often envision older people as, wise and content. Why this resulted in him killing himself is beyond me. I wonder why Foer didn't simply have him ride off into the sunset and go own and live out his years on his own. One thing I have enjoyed from this book is the many examples of magic realism it contains. I might have often been confused by this novel, but at least I could enjoy the ridiculousness of it, such as a man with a saw in his head becoming a sun dial.
One theme that I did take away from this book was how important memory is. Honestly though, I don't think we have read a story that did not at least involve the theme of memory. With the holocaust being related to so much of the plot, and so much of the story taking place in the past, you'd have to be blind to miss the memory theme in this novel.
Overall I don't think I enjoyed this novel, nor would recommend it to anyone.
Much like Alex and Britton I found the novel to be challenging and at times very confusing. The interplay of a novel within a novel and then the letters between Alex and Jonathan often had me asking myself what the heck just happened. I also found myself having to read very slowly and carefully and then re-read once again parts of the story to fully understand what was going on. This was very frustrating since I am the type of person who likes to read something once and fully understand it and then move on. With that being said I found this to be quite refreshing, since it was unlike I had ever read before in this class and in my life. Most of the books I have read just take a linear pattern that follows a group of characters through the story until the conclusion; this can get a bit boring from time to time. However Foer always keeps you on your toes and I felt he was constantly throwing curveballs at you.
However confusing the book might have been the one thing that really stuck out to me during our lectures about the book was the “origin of a story is always an absence.” With this quote in mind the book really started to make more sense to me. Instead of me wondering why JSF was including all these outlandish details in the story, I finally knew it was because he did not have any of the real details of his family history.
This book was something that challenged me to actually think and understand different concepts, which was somewhat enjoyable. I really do think it is something that I am going to have to read again to fully understand.
To reiterate the consensus of everyone else: yes, I thought Everything Is Illuminated was confusing. But what confused me even more was that I still liked it, though I didn’t fully understand it. There were certain aspects that I felt brought more entertainment to the novel, like the magic realism, as Alex pointed out. I’ve never read magic realism before but once I accepted that this is the world of Jonathon’s narrative, it was easier to grasp. And it created a more interesting image in my mind than if it were all realism. I might not have liked it as much if it were and probably would’ve been bored. I also asked the same question as Alex to myself of why isn’t Alex’s name published as an author? Also, why are only Alex’s letters in the novel? Yes, it might have been a bit excessive and repetitive to put both in there but it could’ve switched between them. Honestly, it frustrated me that I didn’t understand this book without help. However, I deeply appreciated the in class lectures. So many light bulbs went off during the class discussions. One thing that struck my interest the most about this story was the contrast between Jonathon’s and Alex’s narratives but how the character themselves were supposed to mirror each other as well. Mr. Wise pointed out how in the letters Alex thinks that Jonathon’s story is too depressing; no one falls in love (or stays in love), there’s rape, and a lot of death. Whereas Jonathon thinks that Alex’s story is too light and funny. That if he wanted to talk about serious issues, such as the Holocaust and abusive family members, that he shouldn’t joke about it. But at the same time, they are both essentially trying to find out who they are: Jonathon’s narrative literally tells of his genealogy (or what he made up of it) and Alex ends up questioning who he is and finally becomes his own person a part from his father and grandfather. I don’t know if I liked ending the year with this book. I feel like if we did it more towards the beginning in place of Portnoy, we wouldn’t feel so rushed to finish it and have more time to let it soak in. However, I am glad to have read it. I’ve enjoyed every novel in this class, which was a surprise to me since I usually don’t like assigned readings.
Hailey's analysis of the novel is very spot-on and accurate. I wouldn't call the novel confusing, however. I would describe it more as a woven tapestry. There are so many different threads of so many different colors. We can't determine what the tapestry is all about until we see the finished product. Near the end of the novel it's "strings" began tied and I started to get a better feel of what JFS was trying to convey the entire time. I especially developed a better understanding of why he was writing his magic realism narrative. He was constructing a family history for himself. The scars left from the Holocaust span across generations and these scars are reflected in his story. I especially liked how Alex changed throughout the novel, as well. He became much more serious and became closer with Jonathan in that sense. I can also agree that I wish this novel was not assigned last. It is a difficult novel to end on and I agree with Hailey that it would've been nice for it to soak in. Anyway, all in all, I enjoyed this book!
I feel the same as Hailey. This book was confusing to read and hard to keep up with but it was interesting and it kept me going to try to finish, though I may have to go back and reread to get a better understanding of everything. I had never read a magic realism novel and for this being the first, I don’t regret it. You can’t just read Everything is Illuminated like a regular story that flows but had to stop and think about both the realism part and the magical part and how far one can go to make something that is real and normal to something imaginary. At the end of it all, I enjoyed reading it. How Jonathan and apparently Alex both came together writing their part independently but was able to combine their parts and turn it into one book was amazing. But I wonder does this book only have to do with how two completely different families was affected by the Holocaust but also how you never know who you will meet later on in life bring your past into the present? This also shows how small this huge world really is. I also wonder what if Alex and Jonathan wrote their stories in two different books would it have made sense apart?
The novel Everything Is Illuminated has to be one of the most confusing books I have ever read. There are certain parts of the novel that I don’t even know what’s going on or who is speaking. The worst part about it as I feel is that the more I read it and the deeper I get into the book the more confusing the story seams to be. The timeline seems to be a giant mess and makes it impossible to keep up with what is going on. You loose the flow of the story when you have to stop reading figure out what just happened and flip back into the book where the previous action took place and remind yourself what has happened and then try to continue in reading the story. While I will say that certain parts of the story are extremely enjoyable to read and follow that only last for a short while and lead into a part of the story where you get so confused you just want to throw the book across the room. While I bet that the story would make a lost more sense and be a lot more enjoyable the second time you read it, it raised a problem due to time constrain that you just don’t have enough time reread the book and you can have a clear and perfect understanding. The novel has a lot of potential, and I enjoy the development of the characters it just seams that they have to much hidden history for you to be able to comprehend to help clarify the story. Another issue I have with the story and I just don’t seem to understand is the magical realism aspect. While I am not a fan of magical realism and have read some novels that contain it I just feel that the scenes of magical realism in Everything is Illuminated, is so far in left field that it makes that part of the story even harder to comprehend. Overall I would not recommend teaching this book based on the fact that I don’t even feel confortable, that I understand what is going on. The book while has a lot of potential I feel only appeals to a certain reader and I believe that I am not that type of reader. It is hard to hold attention of readers and making it confusing and non-linear doesn’t help in the matter
I found your post interesting for a number of reasons. You brought up some of my favorite aspects of the text, the woven narrative, magical realism, and unreliable narrators.
In my opinion, these are what makes the text so strong and is a great example of post-modernist writing. The woven narratives are all brought together at the end of the book when all is finally revealed about Alex and Jonathan’s grandfathers’ pasts. Each narrative shows a different aspect of the story, which can not all be seen on a linear plane.
We get to see Alex through his letters, the way he choses to present himself to Jonathan, as well as through his telling of the events that happened in the Ukraine. In my opinion, this is a very smart move on the author’s part. If he was as inspired by absences as our class has been led to understand, he purposefully leaves “his” opinion out of the present action. (And I say “his” because Jonathan Safran Foer obviously wrote what Alex is saying, as well as what the character Jonathan Safran Foer says).
Magical realism is a classic favorite genre of mine, but I can understand it’s not for everyone. Choosing to paint his family history this way is interesting, and speaks to the need he feels to generate a history because the real story is missing. It also critiques the way memory plays in to immortalizing history.
I would have to agree with what Alex wrote in that Everything is Illuminated has definitely been one of the most challenging books for me to read this semester. Not only was it difficult for me to follow (until we discussed the plot in class the day after I read each section), but it also was not really one of the best reads this semester in my opinion. That’s not to say it wasn’t an excellent, well-written book; I just had more trouble focusing and getting into the actual story and plot. That said, I do also think that the way that Jonathon Safran Foer went about writing the novel was a work of genius. The story from the two different perspectives of Alex and Jonathon really helps the reader to understand the characters and plot. The third form of narrative, existing as the letters written between the two boys was a way for the author to show us the different characters’ personalities and thoughts without just coming out and saying them. Though brilliantly planned and written, I found this to be kind of annoying at times because the different story lines were chopped into pieces and mixed in with one another. Keeping track of the sequence of events and putting together different parts of the narrative after reading about a completely different narrative was difficult for me to master. I feel as though this is one of those books that you need to read at least twice to fully understand. I would have to disagree with Jasmine, however, about this book being similar to all the other books we’ve read this semester. While it does share certain similar themes to some of the other pieces, I found it interesting how Foer went about portraying the past and present. It is a very prevalent theme, I’ve learned throughout this semester, for Jewish American literature to have flashbacks and switch between the past and the present. However, in the past texts we’ve read, this occurs in a single character’s present and then the flashback in the book is the narrator relaying a memory of his/her own or of someone else. For example, in Maus, Arties is in the present with his father and the reader specifically sees the narrative jump back to his father’s past, as he begins to relay his story. This book, however, is seen through two distinct views, with no transition in between. One moment you are seeing things in the present through Alex’s eyes, and the next you are in a completely different time period with Jonathon telling his family’s history. It makes for a more complex, but more interesting piece.
I would have to agree with Chynna in respects that this has definitely been one of the harder reads this semester. Nonetheless, I did really enjoy the novel as a whole. I have never read a novel that had this much complexity when it came to multiple plots. Likewise, up until Everything is Illuminated I had never read any type of magical realism. I didn’t really understand it, but once we discussed it in class it was easier to spot and therefore more enjoyable. I think the magical realism in the story made it quirky. I liked the fact that some parts of the story were true and realistic but at the same time there were otherworldly possibilities. I also agree with Chynna on the idea that this is definitely a book that needs to be read a couple times to fully enjoy it. I would compare it to a movie with a complex plot, when you watch it for the second time and find things and make connections that you missed before. Although there were times of confusion, Jonathon Safran Foer is a pure genius for the way he went about intertwining the past and the present. It is how the past and the present are connected and how the plot is set up in the book that makes this novel so unique.
After finishing Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything is Illuminated, the main element of the novel that really stuck out to me was Foer’s (the character’s)issue with postmemory and his need to re-create the past in order to find out who he really is and where his family came from. I just loved that line from the book that Spencer mentioned in class: “The origin of a story is always an absence.” This coincides perfectly with Jonathan’s situation, because he has a longing for finding out more about his grandfather’s past and who he really is. He feels a painful silence of not knowing, and wants answers to all his questions. I thought that this obsession with re-creating the past in order to understand what his grandfather went through in the Holocaust went along perfectly with this idea of postmemory, and I was really excited when it was brought up in class the other day so that we could discuss it further! The term “postmemory”, as discussed in class, was coined by Marianne Hirsch as a means to discuss the re-lived trauma of the Holocaust experienced by second-generation survivors. In Jonathan’s case, he is a third-generation survivor, but still feels some of the guilt that a second-generation survivor may feel. It seems as though he struggles with the fact that he has no idea about what kinds of trials and tribulations his grandfather went through will living through the Holocaust, thus causing him to go on this somewhat of a wild goose chase after the woman who saved his grandfather’s life. It seems as though Jonathan is also using this journey as a means to reinvent himself as well as find out information about his grandfather; he feels a sense of homelessness due to the fact that he doesn’t know much about his past, and thus is enthralled with his very own empathetic response to hearing about this past trauma of his grandfather during the Holocaust.
I also thoroughly enjoyed how Jonathan’s story tied in with Alex’s story as made evident by the letters exchanged between the two. As I’ve said before, I’ve read Foer’s other novel, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in the past, and I really enjoyed how he was able to tie in the different stories and narratives with one another through his unique writing style. Needless to say, I was very pleased with the way that he did something similar in this novel, as well. Foer has this genius way of making two completely different stories coincide with one another that is just captivating to his readers. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing if he chooses to write anymore novels in the future, because I’ll be one of the first to go out and read it!
Reading Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything is Illuminated was a bit complicated for me because many times I lost track of the reading when they went back and forth from Alex to Jonathan, also this was the first time I read magic realism. One of the things that I believe made the work interesting is the way that both characters will criticize each other about their writings and how they will help each other for a better writing of the book. As Steph Jones says the line about “the origin of a story is always an absence.” Was the basic of all the book, even though Jonathan is a third generation survivor, he still feels survivors guilt. I believe he is lost in all of the Holocaust because he has no idea of what happen in the past to his grandparents and feels guilty that they had to pass through all that while he was born when things were much better. He had the need to create a story of what was the experience of his grandfather and everything he went through to be able to understand everything. This is another book that the character is trying to find himself the question of existence, why he was in this world?
I agree that one of the aspects of the novel that stuck out to me the most was Jonathan's obsession with post memory. Jonathan's sort of self applied responsibility to recover not only his grandfathers history, but his entire family's, sort of pervades the entire text, seeping into every letter and story. He sees memory as a key to unlocking his family's secrets, while learning his as well. Memory can also be confining, like when the people of Trachimbrod become obsessed with memories and they are unable to get anything done. Each memory begets another, and soon they cannot distinguish between memory and current events. They are immobilized by memory, like Lista the old woman. Lista considers herself the keeper of the memory of Trachimbrod, as not an honor but a punishment. She tells Jonathan that survivors are not lucky, meaning that, like herself, they bear memory as a burden. Like the townspeople, she must spend the rest of her life locked in the pain and confusion of memory instead of reaching for new opportunities. The grandfather is confined in the same way, as his memories from the war are so painful he refuses to acknowledge them.
Everything is illuminated probably came off as such a hard read to most of us because of it’s different style of writing. Not being an English major myself, I find it difficult to analyze this piece, especially when I couldn’t follow what was going on and who was talking and what not. I think that once we discussed the plot more in class it was “illuminated” to me the fact that there were pretty much three different stories going on here- Alex’s story, Jonathan’s story, and of course the letters between the two. Repeating this like everyone else was not on purpose, but it was just so difficult to follow at first and throughout the entire novel. I would get so intrigued by one story and then it would flip into the next one. It was hard to recall where the stories were picking up from each time they would switch. I did like the fact that we talked about magical realism in class because I never knew that there was an actual term for that sort of writing. It was interesting to me to discuss it and honestly I missed half of the things mentioned while I was reading, so it helped me to look out for more (like the temple on wheels) when I continued my reading. Overall I would’ve enjoyed reading the book a second time now that I know what the author was trying to do with it. I find it particularly interesting that Foer used his actual name as a character for the book, and even more fascinating that they were talking about writing their novel, within the novel. I don’t know if I liked it, but it was definitely a different approach to writing that I haven’t seen much of before. Mentioned above was the fact that this book seemed to follow themes of the other books we read all semester…well isn’t that the point? I think the consistency is so we can get a good grasp on Jewish literature, and by the end of all of our readings I can say that I see similarities in all of them, mainly being that each other emphasized that they all seem to be largely affected by their past and their parents pasts, and how family is a large part of their identity. I enjoyed the class and the readings because they were different than the typical literature assignments I’ve seen.
Devin Harkins In Everything Is Illuminated I appreciated the constant theme that once something ends it gives way for something new to begin. One of the first examples in the novel was when the destruction of the wagon practically gave ‘birth’ to a child (new life) in a magical realism scheme. One of the last examples was when the grandfather killed himself not only because he was at peace with his life but also that he could make way for Alex to really become an individual and leader of the family. This makes me wonder if Foer meant this as more of a self sacrifice for others or if that’s just how the world works. I also find it interesting that because Alex finds out about his grandfather’s secret about his experience with the Holocaust he in turn became much more serious and almost solemn with his letters and writing. It feels like Alex has matured through the novel, realizing that everything in life can’t be taken so lightly. Also Alex became much more articulate with his writing style, much less rudimentary and more advanced. This shows how the character grew in many different ways throughout the journey and novel. This goes back to the reoccurring theme of ‘Self’; Alex seems to be reinventing himself, altering his personality because of what happened in his grandfathers past. This leads to how closely the past can affect the present; how knowledge rather than ignorance can shake a person to their very core and make them second guess who they are. Although this novel started out to be mainly Jonathan’s story it quickly turned into Alex’s story and his search to find out the truth of his family’s past and what that means to him and who he will become. This novel is like one big paradox; in death begins birth, in absence there’s presence, silence creates words, and the hole is the rule and the void surrounds the hole. It took me a while to decode these messages but when I reread a couple chapters these statements actually made perfect sense to me. This novel carries a lot of symbolism and many psychological theories that I was not expecting. This novel is a strong example of the domino effect, one event leads to another which creates a specific result and so on. It’s like a spark that moves along the path towards the awaiting fire pit, and that is where everything is illuminated.
Like everyone else, I too was deeply confused by this novel. While I enjoyed the read to a certain extent, I was not able to follow much of what was going on until our class discussion when Mr. Wise explained the plot to us. However, while I acquired a basic understanding of the plot, I still don’t think I was able to grasp the novel in its entirety. This is a novel one definitely has to read twice in order to fully comprehend everything that is going on. I found the switching between the different narratives to be annoying, and I couldn’t really keep track of the different chains of events happening in one narrative while also trying to remember another chain of events in another narrative. It was hard to pick up from where I left off in one story after reading a completely different one. Despite this, I liked that the characters mirrored each other in that they each had to feed off of the other in order to grow as characters. Alex starts off as a promiscuous man hiding behind many nicknames, begging for attention. With Jonathan’s help, he is able to grow up and stand up to his father and become a writer. Magical realism is also a new term for me, because I have never read anything of that genre before. I was thoroughly confused by it, but also entertained. I found the man with the saw in his head that also became a sundial to be absolutely absurd... However, I do feel that it played a big part in the novel in that it shows the need for storytelling, a recurring theme in our class. Jonathan felt that he needed to generate a family history because there was none. He needed to piece together his family’s history in order to find out what happened to his grandfather and who he was.
Cristina Diaz (Part I)
ReplyDeleteEverything is illuminated now that we have reached the end of Foer’s novel. I would like to state that although confusing and a bit complicated at first; the novel has a way of unfolding itself and tying everything in for its reader once we reach the end of it. Foer successfully incorporates many complex ideas, themes and symbols throughout the story; I will discuss some of my favorite found toward the end, since this is what this particular blog is concerned with. Near the end of the novel (I believe around chapter 30 or so) we read about the note that the Gypsy girl writes which unlike us, Safran never gets to read. This one worded note is vague but a definite symbol in the novel, “change”. It could be referring to many changes that are to come or that can potentially come, yet do not, since Safran is left unaware of this as the note is blown away, due to the gust of wind and eventually burns, more wood for the fire, if you will. Thus the note in itself is a form of illumination. As a reader I was definitely waiting for “The first blast and then love 1941”! Finally after 2,700 sexual encounters our poor Safran experiences an orgasm; simultaneously with the blowing of the bombs in a nearby shtetl. From this experience he concludes that it must be love. I must admit I was waiting anxiously to see some emotion from this character. I truly enjoyed reading about this particular experience. Memory receives a great amount of attention at the end of the novel. This is no surprise since we are reading Jewish Literature; which usually ties in to the Holocaust, now only a distant memory (thankfully). One of my favorite lines in the novel, “memory took the place of terror.” I believe this is applicable to the experiences of the Holocaust from the Jewish community as a whole. I cannot help but see this not only happen to the townspeople of Trachimbrod but also to Vladek from Art Spiegelman’s Maus, for instance, where the only thing left of the experience is the written word which stems from the memory . This is something I will definitely take from this course; Jewish Literature is extremely tied to memories. Unfortunately the townspeople reached a point where they were so concerned with remembering that they seized to create new memories for themselves (I believe Jonathan Safran Foer is attempting to highlight something here for Jews in general). Although this novel has a lot of fantastical elements I enjoyed how Foer gives you glimpses of reality and ties actual history into his fictional story. For instance, when he describes that the floats were poor and ugly in the 1942 festival due to the war and lack of supplies. We are able to see how war actually affects a town (even if it is a made up one in this case, he still drives the point home).
Yes, this novel was confusing, for a great chunk of the whole thing, and although everything is tied together at the end and the beauty of the stories can truly be appreciated, it took a while to get there. There were many time I found myself not wanting to continue the journey through time, so to speak, because I was constantly being thrown to some other aspect of a memory as you mention. There were constant questions, and gaps in the story that were being created and not answered or connected until much later in the story. The aspect of the novel that I found really moved the story along through its humor, were Alex’s letters to “The Hero.” I enjoyed the evolution of Alex as a character, and how the letters served to tie things together in the story within the story. Also, sort of like in Maus, the way that Spiegleman wrote Vladek with an accent in keeping the awkward diction was interesting because as the story progressed there was an evolution an also in the tone of his voice. The relationship between “The Hero” and Alex was intriguing and that evolution grasped me much more than did the ancestral story. I feel that this is because I took Alex to be another “side” so to speak of the author, a side he explored through writing this book. Being as to that the letters between the two of them were intended to be criticisms of each other’s work, it in essence is criticisms of his own work. So it was interesting to see the what he battled with in creating this novel. This aspect of the book reminded me of the part in Maus when Spiegleman has become overwhelmed by his own success and is now contemplating a movie based no the book, or when he is debating how to tell a story that is not his own and considers the criticisms others will have upon his decision to use anthropomorphized creatures, and other instances in which he too criticizes his own work in the making, yet we are reading the final product. Jonathan Safran Foer does this same thing is such an intricate and in some ways detached yet personal way that it is quite commendable and enjoyable to read the evolution.
DeleteCristina Diaz (Part II) ( Both post are meant to be read together, I was forced to split them because the site wouldn't allow me to publish it together)
ReplyDeleteLastly, we conclude the novel with a letter written by Grandfather; our first and last letter from him since it is a suicide note of sorts. It is interesting; how he decides to terminate his life not because he is unhappy (as he has lived unhappy for a great part of his life and is usually what leads people to commit suicide) instead he decides to terminate his life because he is completely content. Thus he is able to leave in peace and allow for the future generation to take control, Alex. This is also because Alex sends his father on his way, telling him that Little Igor, his mother and himself will be fine without him. Grandfather supports Alex in this decision completely. I would venture to say that the most illuminated character at the end of the novel would have to be Grandfather; since he has terminated his own life in complete happiness and peace. Indeed a well thought out work of art; the novel begins and ends with death something which caught my attention and forced me to praise Foer as a writer even more than I had at the commencement of reading this novel. In the beginning Trachim B is killed in an accident and becomes a legend of sorts from here the festivities and traditions within the town are born. Similarly at the end Grandfather kills himself so that Alex can be the sole leader of the household. From start to finish Foer is ingeniously demonstrating how something must end, in order for new beginnings to take precedence. Likewise, with the end of this novel we are able to stand tall, and look toward new beginnings, Hooray Foer!
Christina, I really liked the specific moments at the end of the novel you included. To me the "change" note meant a lot of different things before it came what you said was an "illumination". I feel like the change was the change a jewish person makes when they "discover" themselves or their purpose. Much like many of the other novels and short stories we have read, the characters change when they figure out who they really are or what their purpose is. Their change may not be in themselves, it could also be with their actions. That's what this note symbolized to me. I think it was also a notice to the reader that change had taken place; a somewhat in your face "just to let you know" change has occurred warning.
DeleteLater in the story, it is interesting to me that Safran points out that Johnathan's family is a coward. That they give up happiness and love for something so "trivial" such as culture and tradition. Yet, Safran doesn't seem to have much happiness, love, or tradition in his life. Only sadness. This story is extremely depressing to me. It seems to me that this journey was somewhat a disappointment other than revealing the grandfather's past and unveiling it to future generations. However, if I was the grandfather and I revealed the truth, I would feel liberated. I wouldn't feel as selfish to kill myself after having lived so such an old age. This book left me overall depressed and overall the author's style, tone, and changing point-of views are a stroke of genius. I really don't see where he gets off to write this type of novel with such little first hand experience in the holocaust. I kind of enjoyed the JOURNEY of the story, but I somewhat resent the author now for the ending.
Although the path of reading Everything is Illuminated has been a confusing one I liked the outcome of the novel. I liked how a novel that I had never come across before challenged me. The whole idea of two narratives within a narrative was pure genius. There were a total of 3 kinds of chapters, Alex’s novel, Jonathan’s novel and Alex’s letters to Jonathan. The letters from Alex to Jonathan were probably my favorite part of the story. The letters were what give the reader the inside look as to who Alex was and the interworking of his character. The character of Alex really grew throughout the story. He started off as a man who could hardly speak English or even use the proper words in a sentence. As the story went on the readers realized Alex removed his fake mask and he finally decided to be himself. The promiscuous Alex with all the girls and all the nicknames couldn’t be far enough from the truth as to who the real Alex was. I believed Alex was trying to impress Jonathan and himself. He wanted to escape his reality and Jonathan helped him. Jonathan helped Alex become a writer and become a man. The part where Jonathan wrote the excerpt about Alex standing up to his father was what gave Alex the push he needed to do just that. The letters were so interesting because Jonathan Safran Foer made me really think this Alex character was a real person who helped write this book. The reality of it was Jonathan did travel to the Ukraine, but no one really knew if he met a man named Alex or someone that he met set the stage for Foer’s character in the novel. It was interesting how Jonathan made two characters from two different walks of life evolve to become similar at the end of the story. Alex was the grandson of a perpetrator while Jonathan was the grandson of a victim. The reality of the story was that Jonathan the character had no clue what his grandfather was. Jonathan wrote the novel to piece together his lost family history. Jonathan portrayed post memory. He never endured nor experienced the Holocaust and neither did his parents. He was a third generation survivor. It was so interesting how the horrific events of the Holocaust were passed down generations. The trauma from one generation was so significant that those down the family line could still “feel” the pain and trauma that their relatives went through.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erika, after being confused for the most part of the first half of the book, I have gained a great deal of respect for Foer (really wanted to say that) and his ability to intertwine the two narratives and multitude of letters into one novel. The scope of the novel is massive which was the basis of much of my initial confusion. After our class discussion I gained a clearer picture of what was going on and the imagination used by Jonathan when recreating the past. I too grew a bond to the characters, especially Alex and his progression throughout the novel. He introduced himself in the novel, in my opinion, as a crazy foreigner begging for attention and towards the end he has completely redefined himself and finally stood up to his father. I assumed that it was only a matter of time before Alex lost his cool and demanded change. The Holocaust had a huge influence on people all around the world and from this novel we can see that the speculation of it continues through the generations. I wished that Grandfather did not commit suicide in the novel because I did not see the need for it. Now I feel like the hunt for "Augustine" has led to his ill fate. In all, this novel has truly grown on me and I am glad that it was in our syllabus.
DeleteGinny Renas
DeleteI agree with Erika that Everything is Illuminated is definitely a confusing read. With this being said, that’s what I grew to love about this novel. I don’t think I could convince any of my friends or family to read this book if I explained to them what it was about. At first I was frustrated that Spencer didn’t give us any information about this book before we started reading it. However, after reading it I’m really glad he didn’t. I would never think a book with magical realism would spark my interest. Frankly, I thought I hated it. This novels quality to make me question a lot of my comprehension of each chapter is what I started to really learn to appreciate. Every time I took a break from reading the book I would think, “who the heck could come up with this”. I went into the novel thinking it was crazy and turned the last page wondering how on earth someone could be this intelligent and crafty to publish something so amazing. I keep asking family and friends if they have ever read this book and I haven’t run into anyone else, other than this class, who has. It’s such a hard book to convince people to read because how in the world do you go about explaining it to someone? You can’t. You just have to read it yourself. This has definitely become one of my favorite books of all time and I’m not sure if it’s socially acceptable to put in writing considering I might be branding myself “crazy”.
I was also really confused when first reading the novel, but despite that I enjoyed it. I also found the grwoth of Alex interesting and the letters do reveal this. The letters also show the grwoing relationship between Alex and Jonathan. As you mentioned the author wrote himself into the book and did in fact go on a trip to the Ukkraine, but if he met a man or knew someone like Alex is unclear. I personally feel that Alex is a creation of Jonathan. The character Jonathan in the novel was recreating a whole history of his great grandmother and was even writing scenes in his diary of Alex, such as the one where Alex stands up to his father. As we have talked about in class the book wants the reader to be aware of the writing. I think that scene where Alex is reading Jonanthan's diary can be linked to Maus where the reader can actually see Art writing the book. It is in that instant when Alex is reading the diary that Alex becomes likes us and is physically reading Jonanthan's writing. I think that is also why there is never letters from Jonathan because the whole book essentially acts as a letter to it's reader. Ok the last thing I wanted to touch on is that I also think that Jonanthan has created and written a character like Alex into the novel was because of the reconciliation aspect. We have also talked about how these two people who are products of the horrors of the holocaust, where Jonanthan's family were victims and Alex's family have helped it happen It seems like these two should be enemies or at least Jonanthan should resent Alex, but that is not the case. These two are friends and are writing the story together, which brings a message of peace and unity in the novel It shows that there does not need to be this animosity between people. I really liked this book and will probably reread it again since I now know what is going on.
DeleteDesiree Amadeo
ReplyDeleteFor my journal, I wanted to further analyze one of the sections of 'Everything is Illuminated' we discussed in class today that I found particularly intriguing. I chose the section that deals with Brod, Safron, and the hole in the wall of his exiled bedroom through which they communicate. Spencer asked us in class to analyze the text and what Foer was getting at when he said 'the hole is no void; the void exists around it' (Foer 139). In this passage, Foer broaches the paradox of 'absence being a presence' (Foer 135). This paradox is addressed previously when the hole is pictured as a loving connection point between Safron and Brod and also the only way he is able to receive medical treatment. What this paradox is clearly pointing out is that some times, the very fact that someone, or something, is not physically present can create an energy or "presence" in the room. The common human trait of wanting what you can't have surfaces. Because you miss/want something that's not there with you, the absence of said item causes it to manifest equally. Even if it's not in a physical way. Personally, I think this part where Brod cuts the hole out is a clear reiteration of this paradox. It points out that though the hole had a sad connotation to it, it was also the only thing allowing them to connect. When she makes a bead of the hole, the hole is explained to be what 'had separated her from the Kolker for those last months,' but I don't think that's what Foer wants us to see in regards to the hole's actual meaning (Foer 139). Sure, it was sad that Safron isolated himself, but without the hole. He and Brod would've been completely void of any communication without it, it wasn't the separating point. Yes, it's referred to in a negative light here, but just pages before it was seen as a beacon of hope. Foer says that they 'lived with the hole' and their time together through it 'felt precious' (135). Also, just sentences above, Foer describes the wall as being 'selfish' (135). The hole truly isn't a void, despite its lack of material composition. It is instead the only element containing worth. Accordingly, the wall surrounding it, which holds no possibility of interaction, is the void. Once cut out of the wall, the hole continues to make present something that is absent as it serves to be a physical memory for Brod of her final times with her husband.
While I did thoroughly enjoy this novel (maybe because I love the movie so much), I felt like the reoccurring themes throughout all of the pieces we’ve analyzed are just so similar, it was kind of like beating a dead horse. Don’t get me wrong, this is one of the only literature classes that I’ve taken that I’ve actually read all of the required novels on time and with pleasure. I guess I was just hoping that the ending to the book would kind of contain a different moral or attitude towards the Jewish culture than any of the other novels have. With that said, however, I did have a much easier time reading the second half of the book than I did the first. The characters finally grow into who they are, and I loved seeing the idea of change and growth play an important role instead of, much like in Maus, the characters being entrapped in this sort of spiral of a Jewish Holocaust curse sort of thing. Even though Foer never gets to read the letter from the gypsy that solely contained the word “change”, I feel that the letter affected everyone so heavily towards the end of the book. Foer changed into someone that could accept criticism and come to terms with most of that inner turmoil, while Alex transformed into a blossoming writer, someone that wasn’t afraid to be himself and no longer had to lie to Foer in order to be comfortable with who he was. While both of these characters show tremendous amounts of change throughout the novel, Grandfather is the character that intrigued me the most, and actually gave me insight into my own life. The transition from depressed to at least content was an inspiring one, and the fact that his life shifted from one that we, as the reader, thought must have been so filled with those voids to one that was completely free of any stress and responsibility at all really gave us an inside look as to what his life had been like. If one can commit suicide right after their life has taken a turn for the better, it shows true desire to never fall into that deep depression again, which makes me, as a fan of this character, ecstatic. We don’t see this empowerment in any of the other books, this wanting to actually be alright with the world after it has treated you so poorly. I guess this element is what made the ending to this book the most important to me, something the other novels showed a lack of.
ReplyDeleteLeslie Oxford
DeleteI agree with Jasmine that Everything is Illuminated stayed very close to the ideas represented in the other Jewish literature covered in class. However, I do not believe this is due to any lack of creativity from Jonathan Safran Foer. In fact, I found this novel's approach to the aftermath of the Holocaust to be refreshingly original. The parallels of stories told from Alex and Jonathan, enabled for a barrier to be broken between Foer and the reader. Jasmine discussed her favorite character the Grandfather, stating how his committing suicide when his life begins to turn for the better represents a "desire to never fall into (a) deep depression again." Jasmine found this to be an optimistic point of view, because it allows for "empowerment". I disagree with this conclusion. I find that the Grandfather's suicide, points to the sad truth that he never overcomes his own traumatic experiences. He may have killed himself in order to evade future depression, but the very need to escape the idea of future depression points to the never ending cycle of pain. Foer does not provide a happy and colorful life; rather he paints a bleak picture for the future generations.
Alex Dishman
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of things that I want to talk about in this blog dealing with Everything is Illuminated as well as how it relates back to the class. First, I thought that the novel was extremely difficult for me personally to follow (I don’t know if it was the same for any or every one else), and it took a lot of effort for me to actually sit down and read it. I am not saying that I disliked the book or didn’t enjoy it; I’m just saying that it took me a while to catch on to things and enjoy it because I was always so confused. I have to admit that after class on Monday, a lot of points were highlighted and my attitude going into the rest of the book was switched. While reading this book I was very set back because I just felt I wouldn’t catch on to it at all. With that being said, some of the main things that confused me were the different characters and the letters between Jonathan and Alex. After class on Monday when Mr. Wise thoroughly explained the plot and the story, the book was a little clearer to me and that is when I actually started to appreciate and understand the book a little more. I understood that the letters were because they were writing the story that we were reading, but some of the material just made it confusing for me. One random (and probably really stupid) thought that I had is why isn’t Alex listed as one of the authors? If that question is answered in the story or something, it just goes to show how little I actually understood of the book. I also wanted to mention the role that magic seemed to play in the novel. Although it was unrealistic at times (such as the blade in the head and then surviving as well as him becoming a sun dial), I thought that the magic was a nice little addition. I also thought that the situation with Alex and his father was extremely complex and that complexity added to the story. I think the entire scene that Jonathan created for Alex standing up to his father (and eventually leading him to do it) really added to the book. To conclude, I thought that the story was complex and difficult to understand but that reading it was beneficial. The insight that the book gave was a different insight than any other reading we did in the class. This wasn’t my favorite reading of the semester, but I think it was a good way to end the class. However, I do think that it might be a little too complicated to understand and follow.
I could not agree more with Alex. I found this book to be an extremely hard read, possibly the most difficult I have ever encountered. Class on monday, however, did help a lot in terms of grasping the plot, but I would still say I have a basic understanding at best. The letters written by Alex are still very confusing, as I've yet to work out their full contribution to the story.
DeleteSomething I more or less understand but was confused by was the Grandfather's suicide. It was great to see his transformation from an old bitter man to what we often envision older people as, wise and content. Why this resulted in him killing himself is beyond me. I wonder why Foer didn't simply have him ride off into the sunset and go own and live out his years on his own. One thing I have enjoyed from this book is the many examples of magic realism it contains. I might have often been confused by this novel, but at least I could enjoy the ridiculousness of it, such as a man with a saw in his head becoming a sun dial.
One theme that I did take away from this book was how important memory is. Honestly though, I don't think we have read a story that did not at least involve the theme of memory. With the holocaust being related to so much of the plot, and so much of the story taking place in the past, you'd have to be blind to miss the memory theme in this novel.
Overall I don't think I enjoyed this novel, nor would recommend it to anyone.
Much like Alex and Britton I found the novel to be challenging and at times very confusing. The interplay of a novel within a novel and then the letters between Alex and Jonathan often had me asking myself what the heck just happened. I also found myself having to read very slowly and carefully and then re-read once again parts of the story to fully understand what was going on. This was very frustrating since I am the type of person who likes to read something once and fully understand it and then move on. With that being said I found this to be quite refreshing, since it was unlike I had ever read before in this class and in my life. Most of the books I have read just take a linear pattern that follows a group of characters through the story until the conclusion; this can get a bit boring from time to time. However Foer always keeps you on your toes and I felt he was constantly throwing curveballs at you.
DeleteHowever confusing the book might have been the one thing that really stuck out to me during our lectures about the book was the “origin of a story is always an absence.” With this quote in mind the book really started to make more sense to me. Instead of me wondering why JSF was including all these outlandish details in the story, I finally knew it was because he did not have any of the real details of his family history.
This book was something that challenged me to actually think and understand different concepts, which was somewhat enjoyable. I really do think it is something that I am going to have to read again to fully understand.
Hailey Dolan
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate the consensus of everyone else: yes, I thought Everything Is Illuminated was confusing. But what confused me even more was that I still liked it, though I didn’t fully understand it. There were certain aspects that I felt brought more entertainment to the novel, like the magic realism, as Alex pointed out. I’ve never read magic realism before but once I accepted that this is the world of Jonathon’s narrative, it was easier to grasp. And it created a more interesting image in my mind than if it were all realism. I might not have liked it as much if it were and probably would’ve been bored. I also asked the same question as Alex to myself of why isn’t Alex’s name published as an author? Also, why are only Alex’s letters in the novel? Yes, it might have been a bit excessive and repetitive to put both in there but it could’ve switched between them.
Honestly, it frustrated me that I didn’t understand this book without help. However, I deeply appreciated the in class lectures. So many light bulbs went off during the class discussions.
One thing that struck my interest the most about this story was the contrast between Jonathon’s and Alex’s narratives but how the character themselves were supposed to mirror each other as well. Mr. Wise pointed out how in the letters Alex thinks that Jonathon’s story is too depressing; no one falls in love (or stays in love), there’s rape, and a lot of death. Whereas Jonathon thinks that Alex’s story is too light and funny. That if he wanted to talk about serious issues, such as the Holocaust and abusive family members, that he shouldn’t joke about it. But at the same time, they are both essentially trying to find out who they are: Jonathon’s narrative literally tells of his genealogy (or what he made up of it) and Alex ends up questioning who he is and finally becomes his own person a part from his father and grandfather.
I don’t know if I liked ending the year with this book. I feel like if we did it more towards the beginning in place of Portnoy, we wouldn’t feel so rushed to finish it and have more time to let it soak in. However, I am glad to have read it. I’ve enjoyed every novel in this class, which was a surprise to me since I usually don’t like assigned readings.
Natalie Palmer
DeleteHailey's analysis of the novel is very spot-on and accurate. I wouldn't call the novel confusing, however. I would describe it more as a woven tapestry. There are so many different threads of so many different colors. We can't determine what the tapestry is all about until we see the finished product. Near the end of the novel it's "strings" began tied and I started to get a better feel of what JFS was trying to convey the entire time. I especially developed a better understanding of why he was writing his magic realism narrative. He was constructing a family history for himself. The scars left from the Holocaust span across generations and these scars are reflected in his story.
I especially liked how Alex changed throughout the novel, as well. He became much more serious and became closer with Jonathan in that sense.
I can also agree that I wish this novel was not assigned last. It is a difficult novel to end on and I agree with Hailey that it would've been nice for it to soak in. Anyway, all in all, I enjoyed this book!
Vanessa Previl
DeleteI feel the same as Hailey. This book was confusing to read and hard to keep up with but it was interesting and it kept me going to try to finish, though I may have to go back and reread to get a better understanding of everything. I had never read a magic realism novel and for this being the first, I don’t regret it. You can’t just read Everything is Illuminated like a regular story that flows but had to stop and think about both the realism part and the magical part and how far one can go to make something that is real and normal to something imaginary. At the end of it all, I enjoyed reading it. How Jonathan and apparently Alex both came together writing their part independently but was able to combine their parts and turn it into one book was amazing. But I wonder does this book only have to do with how two completely different families was affected by the Holocaust but also how you never know who you will meet later on in life bring your past into the present? This also shows how small this huge world really is. I also wonder what if Alex and Jonathan wrote their stories in two different books would it have made sense apart?
Justin Huntman
ReplyDeleteThe novel Everything Is Illuminated has to be one of the most confusing books I have ever read. There are certain parts of the novel that I don’t even know what’s going on or who is speaking. The worst part about it as I feel is that the more I read it and the deeper I get into the book the more confusing the story seams to be. The timeline seems to be a giant mess and makes it impossible to keep up with what is going on. You loose the flow of the story when you have to stop reading figure out what just happened and flip back into the book where the previous action took place and remind yourself what has happened and then try to continue in reading the story. While I will say that certain parts of the story are extremely enjoyable to read and follow that only last for a short while and lead into a part of the story where you get so confused you just want to throw the book across the room. While I bet that the story would make a lost more sense and be a lot more enjoyable the second time you read it, it raised a problem due to time constrain that you just don’t have enough time reread the book and you can have a clear and perfect understanding. The novel has a lot of potential, and I enjoy the development of the characters it just seams that they have to much hidden history for you to be able to comprehend to help clarify the story. Another issue I have with the story and I just don’t seem to understand is the magical realism aspect. While I am not a fan of magical realism and have read some novels that contain it I just feel that the scenes of magical realism in Everything is Illuminated, is so far in left field that it makes that part of the story even harder to comprehend. Overall I would not recommend teaching this book based on the fact that I don’t even feel confortable, that I understand what is going on. The book while has a lot of potential I feel only appeals to a certain reader and I believe that I am not that type of reader. It is hard to hold attention of readers and making it confusing and non-linear doesn’t help in the matter
Word count : 406
Isabel Willetts
DeleteI found your post interesting for a number of reasons. You brought up some of my favorite aspects of the text, the woven narrative, magical realism, and unreliable narrators.
In my opinion, these are what makes the text so strong and is a great example of post-modernist writing. The woven narratives are all brought together at the end of the book when all is finally revealed about Alex and Jonathan’s grandfathers’ pasts. Each narrative shows a different aspect of the story, which can not all be seen on a linear plane.
We get to see Alex through his letters, the way he choses to present himself to Jonathan, as well as through his telling of the events that happened in the Ukraine. In my opinion, this is a very smart move on the author’s part. If he was as inspired by absences as our class has been led to understand, he purposefully leaves “his” opinion out of the present action. (And I say “his” because Jonathan Safran Foer obviously wrote what Alex is saying, as well as what the character Jonathan Safran Foer says).
Magical realism is a classic favorite genre of mine, but I can understand it’s not for everyone. Choosing to paint his family history this way is interesting, and speaks to the need he feels to generate a history because the real story is missing. It also critiques the way memory plays in to immortalizing history.
Chynna Humphrey
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with what Alex wrote in that Everything is Illuminated has definitely been one of the most challenging books for me to read this semester. Not only was it difficult for me to follow (until we discussed the plot in class the day after I read each section), but it also was not really one of the best reads this semester in my opinion. That’s not to say it wasn’t an excellent, well-written book; I just had more trouble focusing and getting into the actual story and plot. That said, I do also think that the way that Jonathon Safran Foer went about writing the novel was a work of genius. The story from the two different perspectives of Alex and Jonathon really helps the reader to understand the characters and plot. The third form of narrative, existing as the letters written between the two boys was a way for the author to show us the different characters’ personalities and thoughts without just coming out and saying them. Though brilliantly planned and written, I found this to be kind of annoying at times because the different story lines were chopped into pieces and mixed in with one another. Keeping track of the sequence of events and putting together different parts of the narrative after reading about a completely different narrative was difficult for me to master. I feel as though this is one of those books that you need to read at least twice to fully understand.
I would have to disagree with Jasmine, however, about this book being similar to all the other books we’ve read this semester. While it does share certain similar themes to some of the other pieces, I found it interesting how Foer went about portraying the past and present. It is a very prevalent theme, I’ve learned throughout this semester, for Jewish American literature to have flashbacks and switch between the past and the present. However, in the past texts we’ve read, this occurs in a single character’s present and then the flashback in the book is the narrator relaying a memory of his/her own or of someone else. For example, in Maus, Arties is in the present with his father and the reader specifically sees the narrative jump back to his father’s past, as he begins to relay his story. This book, however, is seen through two distinct views, with no transition in between. One moment you are seeing things in the present through Alex’s eyes, and the next you are in a completely different time period with Jonathon telling his family’s history. It makes for a more complex, but more interesting piece.
I would have to agree with Chynna in respects that this has definitely been one of the harder reads this semester. Nonetheless, I did really enjoy the novel as a whole. I have never read a novel that had this much complexity when it came to multiple plots. Likewise, up until Everything is Illuminated I had never read any type of magical realism. I didn’t really understand it, but once we discussed it in class it was easier to spot and therefore more enjoyable. I think the magical realism in the story made it quirky. I liked the fact that some parts of the story were true and realistic but at the same time there were otherworldly possibilities. I also agree with Chynna on the idea that this is definitely a book that needs to be read a couple times to fully enjoy it. I would compare it to a movie with a complex plot, when you watch it for the second time and find things and make connections that you missed before. Although there were times of confusion, Jonathon Safran Foer is a pure genius for the way he went about intertwining the past and the present. It is how the past and the present are connected and how the plot is set up in the book that makes this novel so unique.
DeleteAfter finishing Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything is Illuminated, the main element of the novel that really stuck out to me was Foer’s (the character’s)issue with postmemory and his need to re-create the past in order to find out who he really is and where his family came from. I just loved that line from the book that Spencer mentioned in class: “The origin of a story is always an absence.” This coincides perfectly with Jonathan’s situation, because he has a longing for finding out more about his grandfather’s past and who he really is. He feels a painful silence of not knowing, and wants answers to all his questions. I thought that this obsession with re-creating the past in order to understand what his grandfather went through in the Holocaust went along perfectly with this idea of postmemory, and I was really excited when it was brought up in class the other day so that we could discuss it further! The term “postmemory”, as discussed in class, was coined by Marianne Hirsch as a means to discuss the re-lived trauma of the Holocaust experienced by second-generation survivors. In Jonathan’s case, he is a third-generation survivor, but still feels some of the guilt that a second-generation survivor may feel. It seems as though he struggles with the fact that he has no idea about what kinds of trials and tribulations his grandfather went through will living through the Holocaust, thus causing him to go on this somewhat of a wild goose chase after the woman who saved his grandfather’s life. It seems as though Jonathan is also using this journey as a means to reinvent himself as well as find out information about his grandfather; he feels a sense of homelessness due to the fact that he doesn’t know much about his past, and thus is enthralled with his very own empathetic response to hearing about this past trauma of his grandfather during the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteI also thoroughly enjoyed how Jonathan’s story tied in with Alex’s story as made evident by the letters exchanged between the two. As I’ve said before, I’ve read Foer’s other novel, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in the past, and I really enjoyed how he was able to tie in the different stories and narratives with one another through his unique writing style. Needless to say, I was very pleased with the way that he did something similar in this novel, as well. Foer has this genius way of making two completely different stories coincide with one another that is just captivating to his readers. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing if he chooses to write anymore novels in the future, because I’ll be one of the first to go out and read it!
Cristina Vallarino
DeleteReading Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything is Illuminated was a bit complicated for me because many times I lost track of the reading when they went back and forth from Alex to Jonathan, also this was the first time I read magic realism. One of the things that I believe made the work interesting is the way that both characters will criticize each other about their writings and how they will help each other for a better writing of the book. As Steph Jones says the line about “the origin of a story is always an absence.” Was the basic of all the book, even though Jonathan is a third generation survivor, he still feels survivors guilt. I believe he is lost in all of the Holocaust because he has no idea of what happen in the past to his grandparents and feels guilty that they had to pass through all that while he was born when things were much better. He had the need to create a story of what was the experience of his grandfather and everything he went through to be able to understand everything. This is another book that the character is trying to find himself the question of existence, why he was in this world?
I agree that one of the aspects of the novel that stuck out to me the most was Jonathan's obsession with post memory. Jonathan's sort of self applied responsibility to recover not only his grandfathers history, but his entire family's, sort of pervades the entire text, seeping into every letter and story. He sees memory as a key to unlocking his family's secrets, while learning his as well. Memory can also be confining, like when the people of Trachimbrod become obsessed with memories and they are unable to get anything done. Each memory begets another, and soon they cannot distinguish between memory and current events. They are immobilized by memory, like Lista the old woman. Lista considers herself the keeper of the memory of Trachimbrod, as not an honor but a punishment. She tells Jonathan that survivors are not lucky, meaning that, like herself, they bear memory as a burden. Like the townspeople, she must spend the rest of her life locked in the pain and confusion of memory instead of reaching for new opportunities. The grandfather is confined in the same way, as his memories from the war are so painful he refuses to acknowledge them.
DeleteKyndall Herman
ReplyDeleteEverything is illuminated probably came off as such a hard read to most of us because of it’s different style of writing. Not being an English major myself, I find it difficult to analyze this piece, especially when I couldn’t follow what was going on and who was talking and what not. I think that once we discussed the plot more in class it was “illuminated” to me the fact that there were pretty much three different stories going on here- Alex’s story, Jonathan’s story, and of course the letters between the two. Repeating this like everyone else was not on purpose, but it was just so difficult to follow at first and throughout the entire novel. I would get so intrigued by one story and then it would flip into the next one. It was hard to recall where the stories were picking up from each time they would switch.
I did like the fact that we talked about magical realism in class because I never knew that there was an actual term for that sort of writing. It was interesting to me to discuss it and honestly I missed half of the things mentioned while I was reading, so it helped me to look out for more (like the temple on wheels) when I continued my reading.
Overall I would’ve enjoyed reading the book a second time now that I know what the author was trying to do with it. I find it particularly interesting that Foer used his actual name as a character for the book, and even more fascinating that they were talking about writing their novel, within the novel. I don’t know if I liked it, but it was definitely a different approach to writing that I haven’t seen much of before. Mentioned above was the fact that this book seemed to follow themes of the other books we read all semester…well isn’t that the point? I think the consistency is so we can get a good grasp on Jewish literature, and by the end of all of our readings I can say that I see similarities in all of them, mainly being that each other emphasized that they all seem to be largely affected by their past and their parents pasts, and how family is a large part of their identity. I enjoyed the class and the readings because they were different than the typical literature assignments I’ve seen.
Devin Harkins
ReplyDeleteIn Everything Is Illuminated I appreciated the constant theme that once something ends it gives way for something new to begin. One of the first examples in the novel was when the destruction of the wagon practically gave ‘birth’ to a child (new life) in a magical realism scheme. One of the last examples was when the grandfather killed himself not only because he was at peace with his life but also that he could make way for Alex to really become an individual and leader of the family. This makes me wonder if Foer meant this as more of a self sacrifice for others or if that’s just how the world works. I also find it interesting that because Alex finds out about his grandfather’s secret about his experience with the Holocaust he in turn became much more serious and almost solemn with his letters and writing. It feels like Alex has matured through the novel, realizing that everything in life can’t be taken so lightly. Also Alex became much more articulate with his writing style, much less rudimentary and more advanced. This shows how the character grew in many different ways throughout the journey and novel. This goes back to the reoccurring theme of ‘Self’; Alex seems to be reinventing himself, altering his personality because of what happened in his grandfathers past. This leads to how closely the past can affect the present; how knowledge rather than ignorance can shake a person to their very core and make them second guess who they are. Although this novel started out to be mainly Jonathan’s story it quickly turned into Alex’s story and his search to find out the truth of his family’s past and what that means to him and who he will become. This novel is like one big paradox; in death begins birth, in absence there’s presence, silence creates words, and the hole is the rule and the void surrounds the hole. It took me a while to decode these messages but when I reread a couple chapters these statements actually made perfect sense to me. This novel carries a lot of symbolism and many psychological theories that I was not expecting. This novel is a strong example of the domino effect, one event leads to another which creates a specific result and so on. It’s like a spark that moves along the path towards the awaiting fire pit, and that is where everything is illuminated.
Like everyone else, I too was deeply confused by this novel. While I enjoyed the read to a certain extent, I was not able to follow much of what was going on until our class discussion when Mr. Wise explained the plot to us. However, while I acquired a basic understanding of the plot, I still don’t think I was able to grasp the novel in its entirety. This is a novel one definitely has to read twice in order to fully comprehend everything that is going on.
ReplyDeleteI found the switching between the different narratives to be annoying, and I couldn’t really keep track of the different chains of events happening in one narrative while also trying to remember another chain of events in another narrative. It was hard to pick up from where I left off in one story after reading a completely different one. Despite this, I liked that the characters mirrored each other in that they each had to feed off of the other in order to grow as characters. Alex starts off as a promiscuous man hiding behind many nicknames, begging for attention. With Jonathan’s help, he is able to grow up and stand up to his father and become a writer.
Magical realism is also a new term for me, because I have never read anything of that genre before. I was thoroughly confused by it, but also entertained. I found the man with the saw in his head that also became a sundial to be absolutely absurd... However, I do feel that it played a big part in the novel in that it shows the need for storytelling, a recurring theme in our class. Jonathan felt that he needed to generate a family history because there was none. He needed to piece together his family’s history in order to find out what happened to his grandfather and who he was.