I absolutely loved "I Who Have Never Known Men," but a…
0 reactions
I absolutely loved "I Who Have Never Known Men," but a possible inconsistency is bothering me. I would love your guys' thoughts or interpretations of this.
I just finished "I Who Have Never Known Men" by Jacqueline Harpman last ight and I thought it was magnificent, and has rightfully earned its place as a modern classic. However, what seems to me like an inconsistency or continuity era is bothering me. Let me explain"
The author seems committed to realism within story. For example, the main character, who has never known life outside of the bunker or the bizarre world outside of it, struggles to understand concepts like intimacy/sex and dancing, things that she did not encountered in the bunker. She also can't comprehend some of the "electrical gadgets" she encounters when she makes it to the luxury bunker at the end of the story, because she has no frame of reference for them.
So that is why some of the Child's references to classic literature do not make any sense to me. The author establishes that the only books she ever encounters are the gardening manual, and the books on astronautics.
So why does she mention works of classic literature that suggest familiarity with the text? Examples:
**“After all, if I was a human being, my story was as important as that of King Lear or of Price Hamlet that William Shakespeare had taken the trouble to relate in detail.” Page 5**
**“I can’t really understand why people kill for money like poor old Raskolnikov.” Page 152**
**“How could the father of Prince Hamlet, if he was dead, appear and talk to him?” Page 163**
Again, I feel like these references suggest that she has read these works, so I find it hard to believe that she picked up on these ideas based on what the other women have told her. The other women are also largely either homemakers or work service jobs, so it also seems unlikely that they would have been familiar with these works enough to pass on these ideas.
What do you guys think? This is affecting how I view the book, which, for the most part, I thought was excellent, so I would love to hear a plausible explanation for this if there is one.
#entertainment
source
I just finished "I Who Have Never Known Men" by Jacqueline Harpman last ight and I thought it was magnificent, and has rightfully earned its place as a modern classic. However, what seems to me like an inconsistency or continuity era is bothering me. Let me explain"
The author seems committed to realism within story. For example, the main character, who has never known life outside of the bunker or the bizarre world outside of it, struggles to understand concepts like intimacy/sex and dancing, things that she did not encountered in the bunker. She also can't comprehend some of the "electrical gadgets" she encounters when she makes it to the luxury bunker at the end of the story, because she has no frame of reference for them.
So that is why some of the Child's references to classic literature do not make any sense to me. The author establishes that the only books she ever encounters are the gardening manual, and the books on astronautics.
So why does she mention works of classic literature that suggest familiarity with the text? Examples:
**“After all, if I was a human being, my story was as important as that of King Lear or of Price Hamlet that William Shakespeare had taken the trouble to relate in detail.” Page 5**
**“I can’t really understand why people kill for money like poor old Raskolnikov.” Page 152**
**“How could the father of Prince Hamlet, if he was dead, appear and talk to him?” Page 163**
Again, I feel like these references suggest that she has read these works, so I find it hard to believe that she picked up on these ideas based on what the other women have told her. The other women are also largely either homemakers or work service jobs, so it also seems unlikely that they would have been familiar with these works enough to pass on these ideas.
What do you guys think? This is affecting how I view the book, which, for the most part, I thought was excellent, so I would love to hear a plausible explanation for this if there is one.
#entertainment
source
| 0 mlx | |
| 2 | |
| 0 |