CCBC-Net Archives
Katherine Paterson
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Bokelman, Todd and Maggie <toddandmaggie>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:33:39 -0400
Message----From: Mary Ann Gilpatrick To: Subscribers of ccbc-net Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Katherine Paterson
Mary Ann Gilpatrick writes:
Of course, Mary Ann is right, and I am glad she responded so I can clarify my point. Certainly I did not mean to suggest that Louise's suffering is all in her mind. However, at the beginning of the book Louise is not able to put her suffering in any kind of context, or to see very far outside of herself or her world. I don't see this as a character flaw--I see this as a natural part of adolescent development, a part that Paterson is unusually skilled at portraying.
Actually, I find Louise a very sympathetic, likeable character. At the end of the book, when we see the mature Louise, it is clear that she has successfully weathered the trauma of her adolescence to become a mature, unusually clear-thinking and far-sighted adult. But even had Paterson chosen to end the book earlier, I think the reader would have harbored a lot of hope for Louise.
Christine Hill's suggestion that Louise is an unreliable narrator is an interesting one. I'm not sure I agree . . . but I'm not exactly sure that I disagree, either. I think I'd have to clarify for myself the definition of an unreliable narrator. If I remember correctly (too bad for me, I recently lent out my copy of the book) Louise is at least true to her own perceptions--meaning, as a narrator, she does not deliberately mislead or lie to the reader. On the other hand, a mad narrator might be true to his or her own perceptions as well, but would nevertheless be considered unreliable. I've heard that an adult who displayed the behavior of the typical adolescent would meet the diagnostic criteria for psychosis. Perhaps, insofar as she's a typically "mad" adolescent, Louise is unreliable--but I'm not sure.
Maggie Bokelman toddandmaggie at msn.com
Received on Thu 19 Aug 1999 09:33:39 PM CDT
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:33:39 -0400
Message----From: Mary Ann Gilpatrick To: Subscribers of ccbc-net Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Katherine Paterson
Mary Ann Gilpatrick writes:
Of course, Mary Ann is right, and I am glad she responded so I can clarify my point. Certainly I did not mean to suggest that Louise's suffering is all in her mind. However, at the beginning of the book Louise is not able to put her suffering in any kind of context, or to see very far outside of herself or her world. I don't see this as a character flaw--I see this as a natural part of adolescent development, a part that Paterson is unusually skilled at portraying.
Actually, I find Louise a very sympathetic, likeable character. At the end of the book, when we see the mature Louise, it is clear that she has successfully weathered the trauma of her adolescence to become a mature, unusually clear-thinking and far-sighted adult. But even had Paterson chosen to end the book earlier, I think the reader would have harbored a lot of hope for Louise.
Christine Hill's suggestion that Louise is an unreliable narrator is an interesting one. I'm not sure I agree . . . but I'm not exactly sure that I disagree, either. I think I'd have to clarify for myself the definition of an unreliable narrator. If I remember correctly (too bad for me, I recently lent out my copy of the book) Louise is at least true to her own perceptions--meaning, as a narrator, she does not deliberately mislead or lie to the reader. On the other hand, a mad narrator might be true to his or her own perceptions as well, but would nevertheless be considered unreliable. I've heard that an adult who displayed the behavior of the typical adolescent would meet the diagnostic criteria for psychosis. Perhaps, insofar as she's a typically "mad" adolescent, Louise is unreliable--but I'm not sure.
Maggie Bokelman toddandmaggie at msn.com
Received on Thu 19 Aug 1999 09:33:39 PM CDT
