IB Big Fish IB

[coltrane]

Here we go again... since we all read the same book, let's start a discussion about Big Fish. All HHS students are invited, but IB students and pre IB students are particularly encouraged to jump into this conversation. So, what did you think of the book?

[flgirl073]

I thoroughly enjoyed Big Fish. I loved the short story feel to the book, but it was interesting to discover the common threads throughout the novel also. Although many of the stories were farfetched, they were still very intriguing. I believe there are many ways of interpreting the reasoning behind the four stories of Edward’s death. I think this is another technique the author uses to reveal the struggle in the father son relationship. I believe that each scene actually occurred, and with each, William was trying to find the proper way to say goodbye to his father. He was not sure what should be their last words, but he luckily had many opportunities to decide. The final telling of Edward’s death or metamorphosis, I feel was perfect for their relationship. William had always heard his father’s extravagant stories, but was never sure if he truly believed them. He was able to be a part of this magical ending or new beginning, depending on how you look at it, of his father. He will now and forever have this special connection with Edward. This was the best goodbye there could be. He did not have to think of the perfect final conversation that he knew his father would just make a joke about. This is my take on the four death stories. What do you guys think?

[coltrane]

The book seemed to me like Daniel Wallace read a bunch of mythology then forgot some details and mixed up a few of the myths, then put them into his father's life story. On the other hand, aren't all of our parents in some ways mythical to us? Myth to me means larger than life, well known but also at some distance, with a mix of fact and fiction. Just musing on a Friday night.

[rani2230]

Big Fish was a very interesting book. It seemed like the author put random events together and made it sound like a story being told out of order. I think flgirl073 is completely right about the four deaths. I feel the same way that William was uneasy about what the last words would be between him and his father. Each of the four deaths start out almost in the same way, but end differently. A person can never have four deaths in real life, but the way Daniel Wallace makes each of the four deaths end differently gives the reader different ways to interpret the death scenes. It's interesting how the book is in bits and pieces of different things, but at the end it all comes together and makes sense. The book is written like a diary or journal, and has a lot of flashbacks and forwards.
I felt that the tone throughout the book was thoughtful and humorous. William is reflecting back on his father's life and he's trying to find the good things about his father. The story is humorous because of some of the things Edward tells to William about his trips when he is away from home and because of several exaggerations.

[Kappy22]

I think it was a very appropriate book to have for the "One School, One Book" program this year. It was a very easy read and it kept me entertained all three times I read it. I did enjoy the different takes on Edward Bloom's death, which actually brought me back to The Handmaid's Tale because Atwood also used this technique. One of the things I didn't agree with was Edward Bloom was so caught up in being and wanting to know if he was a "great man". Even when William gave his standards of what makes a great man, he still thinks his father is one. I think he doesn't really know his father and he might just be saying it just because Edawrd is dying. Either that or he's using what he does know about his father and saying "Sure, you did alot of great things, you're a great man". Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think Edward was just doing what he wanted to do. He did use them as a "pit stop before going somewhere else" and I think it was appropriate for him to use the guest bedroom because he was a guest in his own home.

[flgirl073]

Yes, I believe children often see their parents as larger than life in a way. I feel that children see their parents more as superheroes rather than responsible caretakers. Children are very gullible and at such a young age they do not know what is fiction or nonfiction. They believe everything their parents say or do is true, without question. However, in Big Fish William begins to be skeptical of his father’s stories. At first he was intrigued by his father’s magnificent tales from foreign lands, but as he grows older and hears more and more, his thoughts begin to change. On the other hand, going back to the idea that children believe everything their parents say, when William doubts his father about the two-headed woman, Edward brings up the idea of her sister, and once again William is wrapped up in the story. Many of Edward’s tales William knows can not be true, but he wants to believe them. This story telling is a strong part of his relationship with his father. Although it can often bring struggles, it also provides time for them to bond. As seen in many parts of the novel, the two often have trouble when discussing serious topics, so at least these stories allow them to talk. Also the many great tales told by Edward provide William with something to remember his father by. If he had made the decision as a child not to believe or listen to his father’s stories, he would have hardly any positive memories of his father. Overall, William describes his father as a myth, but his stories provide a key foundation to their father son relationship.

[helgacakes]

I thought the book was okay. It wasn't an incredibly hard novel so I didn't get my brain fried over the summer :) The author's terrible fragments drove me insane though. I don't know why but his choppy sentences were just really annoying. I think my favorite part about the novel was the different parts of Edward's death. I felt like William was getting more and more irritated with Edward's jokes in the different parts. I felt like as William shows more frustration with his father's jokes in the different parts, he was being more honest with how he feels about his father. Also, the point of view was interesting. Often, William calls his father just "Edward" which makes the two characters seem more distant than they should be. I felt like William felt distant from his father because Edward is this great legendary person and William is so normal (well, as far as I could tell). But anyways, yeah-- not a bad book. :)

[zukazamme]

@rani: :idea: I don't think that Edward died four times but rather that his death took place in four stages, and that at each stage William was in fact trying to come up with something meaningful as flgril pointed out but was having diffuculty for the shear fact of not knowing his father, and was also somewhat irritated with his father's casual take on death.

@coltrane: :nod: I agree with what you say about the muddled myths, this imo makes the story original in the way it progresses as it is similar to older tales yet also quite unique.

@kappy: :D Totally agree with Edward doing whatever he wanted, but in the end they were his family and he did return to them for his, what appeard to be, death. Although he did mention somewhere that he regretted not being able to spend so much time with his son.

I liked the book and thought it was rather interesting with it's magical realism elements ;), but it was difficult to get a sense of timing with his fragmented approach and I wasn't really sure what he was going for :confused:. Otherwise it was easy to handle and I read through it rather quickly :p.

[Kappy22]

I remember Edward saying that he missed being with his son during one his (or stages of his) death, but William also said that it was horrible for him to be dying because he had to stay at home and not be out doing what he wanted to do.

"So he was not a good candidate for death; it made being at home even worse...He became just a man, a man without a job, without a story to tell, a man, I realized, I didn't know" (pg 17).

But I think it was more out of obligation and also that it was the right thing to do for him to go home. Also that he couldn't travel anymore was probably a big factor in why he went home. Again, he did say he missed out on his son's life, but after he says this, he tries to almost justify it with his dad being gone so long and not there.

[rani2230]

@ flgirl073
Your comment about children believing everything they hear from their parents is true. The fact that William believed everything and then started to doubt or get annoyed of the stories reminds me of The Poisonwood Bible. It reminds me of how one of the daughters was the worshipper of her father, until she realized that what her father was doing was wrong. Her views started conflicting with her father's just like William's started contradicting his father's views.

At the end of the novel, the last paragraph, William seems like he's finally accepting his father. His father was always his hero, as he had said, and was still trying to help other people. His father became a myth to everyone because when people saw him and told others stories about the "big fish," no one believed it.

Also, I think it was interesting how when William and Edward were born, something out of the ordinary happened. When Edward was born, it rained, and when William was born, Auburn finally won a football game. What do you guys think of this?

[coltrane]

I had the most awesome post ever, but wasn't logged in. I'll be brief, and follow up later:

Four deaths: maybe not literal deaths; at least not until the last one. Ask me about my grandfather sometime.

Rani's last post: lots of myths and religions describe miraculous births; I know the Christmas story from my own tradition; do ya'll know of others (since we do have that I in IB?)

I'm really pondering what the novel says about parent child relationships. I've been on both sides of that line, and I realize that I can never truly know my own father before I existed; I can only get it through stories, most of which are filtered through him, so in a sense he's only real to me in the time I've been alive. In the same way, my life before my kids were born will always be "fictional" to them. Do you guys see this in the novel? Is there a different pre-father Edward and post-father Edward?

I'd also like to discuss the women/female figures in the novel, because women have always puzzled me, and the ones in this novel in particular.

[L'EngleLover]

Despite Big Fish being extremely sporadic, I have to admit that I enjoyed it somewhat. He tied in a lot of mythology which I love, but I agree with coltrane; he did confuse quite a few. Nonetheless, his references to Greek mythology did prove to be a common thread. (I still think his confusion of these myths were intensional.)

I am surprised that no one has brought up The Great Gatsby. I felt like the comparisons to Jay Gatsby and Edward Bloom were screaming in the reader's ear. I did talk about this a bit in my snippets so I'll just give a quick summary: both seem to be Christ figures due to the fact that they recreate/reinvent themselves in attempt to become "great" and follow their dreams.

To coltrane, I do have the same feeling with my own parents. Their pasts seem "fictional" to me partly because I can't imagine them going to school or having to worry about relationship problems; they have always been "grown-ups" as far as I can tell. It is also very interesting to compare what siblings believe about thier parents before the individual births. I have two younger sisters and they have trouble believing "stories" about my parents that I remember experiencing. It's kind of like what we discussed in TOK; it's important to be open-minded and skeptical in balanced amounts. If you are too much of either one, you could either end up jumping off a cliff after a queue of lemmings or becoming the most ignorant person on earth.

I think what makes Edward so unique is that there is no different pre-father Edward and post-father Edward. He is the same person throughout, aspiring to become "great" throughout his life; he never gives up his dream (much like Gatsby). In my opinion, William believes both pre- and post- father stories with the same skepticism. It's only until his father is about to die that he is accepting of them as a crucial part of his father's identity.

As for the women in the novel, what about them? Big Fish makes all of women seem so dependent on Edward and his abilities. The only one who breaks the mold is the "neried" that Edward encounters at the grove and at sea; she aids him instead. Of course the novel is focused on Edward, but for Jenny "Swampgirl Mistress" Hill to go completely crazy after not seeing the "wonderful" Edward for a couple months is a bit too much for me.

[Kappy22]

I looked up the girl from the river and it seems that she is a Naiad. The Naiads were fresh-water nymphs, the daughters of river gods, who inhabited the rivers, lakes, brooks, springs, fountains and marshes within the catchment area of their river-god fathers. They were not immortal, but were still classed among the gods of Olympus. There is also a tie with the boat that Edward was on, The Neried. Nerieds, I think, were a type of Naiad that were more associated with the Mediterranean than with fresh water. there's some overlap because the Greek's thought that the world's waters were all one system. Ex. Arethusa, the nymph of a spring, could make her way through subterranean flows from the Peloponnesus, to surface on the island of Sicily.

[Pipidar1991]

I thought this novel was ok. It wasn't as exciting as I would have liked it to be (I liked Balzac a lot better :) ) but I think it was appropriate for the "one school, one book" thing for the reasons previously mentioned.
I agree w/ Kappy about Edward, and William's true feelings towards him. I got the feeling as well that William was only telling Edward he was a great man b/c he was dying. I found it really ironic how Edward went through life trying to become great by accomplishing all these things and in doing that he was avoiding his family and denying himself becoming a great man by his son's standards.
I also found it odd how Edward was so praised throughout the novel and seen as wonderful when, as said before, he was constantly putting his family second to his self-centered goals. Oh and you can't forget about the whole Jenny thing.
Speaking about the part of the novel with Jenny, I found it interesting that since the story is told in Edward's son's view how the tone of the novel stays the same during that part. You would think that the tone would be different and somewhat resentful, but it seems to stay the exact same way as it has throughout the whole novel. What do you guys think?

[pink591]

Just as many other people mentioned before, I believe Big Fish was a formualation of many short stories put together to make one novel. Although these stories were at times random, once the story came to a conclusion, everything fell into place. For example, sometimes one chapter would end, and I would expect that story to be concluded in the next chapter, but sometimes it would just jump somewhere else. Nevertheless, this was a great novel full of many surprises, and through the magical realism, it was able to keep my attention because of all of the bizarre things that were mentioned. But, the greatest thing that I noticed in this book, and I think we all should have this aspect in our lives, is the huge amount of humor he contained in himself. Although in our lives not everything should be taken in a joking matter, but Edward had a great sense of humor, and kept things alive. Furthermore, even when Edward was "dying," he did not leave his humor behind. Sometimes this got irritating to William, but it was one of his dad's qualities that he had learned to put up with. In conclusion, I think this was a great "One School, One Book" book because it can relate to so many things in just everyday life, and because this book was set up differently, it was easy to follow and read.

[flgirl073]

The female roles throughout the novel are very interesting to me. I felt that all of the females that came in contact with Edward were made to look weak and dependent on him. First, the girl in the river needed to be saved by the “snake.” Edward just happened to be there to heroically jump in and snatch the snake. Then the old lady needs help finding her eye. Also once Sandy marries Edward it seems that she depends on him. She remains with him throughout his life even though he is hardly ever home and obviously has affairs. Also in two of his labors women are in need of assistance. First Mrs. Rainwater needs help with her girdle and then the small girl must be saved from the crazy dog. Of course you can’t leave out Jenny Hill. I find her story very interesting. Before her encounter with Edward, she is a very independent woman living on her own and providing for herself. However, immediately after meeting him she also falls weak and is unable to function without Edward. I believe that these are the main women in the novels and none of them seem to be very strong characters, but again Wallace was trying to prove the heroic aspects of Edward that make him a “great” man. Let me know if you disagree.

[h.i.]

Honestly, I did not really like Big Fish. However, I did appreciate the novel. Wallace did a great job on portraying father-son relationships. He showed how two people that should be really close to each other can actually be extremely distant from each other. Also, the story of desperate William was to get close to his father did touch me because I understand how hard it can be to get close to your dad when he's never really around.
Also, I appreciated how Wallace instilled a hope in his readers about how one person can really make a difference in the world. He portrayed through Edward how one person can change the lives of many through simply being present and making jokes. Before reading this book I never really understood how one person could make a difference, but now I see that anyone can by just being themselves.
Also, in response to one of Mr.Coltrane's posts I want to discuss more about the role of women in this book. As readers, we are introduced to very mysterious yet strong women, such as, Jenny and Sandra. The roles of these women seem to be minor, but I feel like they were actually very important because they helped shape our main character. I also would like to discuss the status of Edward's love life. I was really MAD when I found out he cheated on his wife. I thought he was a good guy, but that really ruined him for me.
Another aspect of the novel that interested me was the mythological references. I'm not that knowledgeable on mythology, but the references I did understand were really cool. For example, the one about the Sisyphean frustration on page 92 fit in so well. Wallace does a great job integrating mythological references into his novel.
I guess I should explain why I did not enjoy the book. I just felt like the book was too random. There were many threads that did help tie the book together, like the essence of death, the role of women, humor, etc... But it did not carry as powerful a message as Riding the Bus with my Sister did. I know a lot of people did not appreciate that book, but I know i did. I made a real connection to the book. However, when it came to Big Fish I felt really disconnected to the book a lot of the time. The only aspect of the book I felt i could really relate to was Williams struggle to get close to his father.

[Neo93]

Hey Everybody!

I generally liked Big Fish, but I kind of missed the deeper messages I found in Balzac. One of the things that really made me appreciate Big Fish was Daniel Wallace's writing style, and how it subtly changed as the story progressed. I kind of noticed this in the tone shift that William undergoes as he gets older in the story. At the beggining of the novel, the stories that make up the myth of Edward Bloom are short and memorable, and young William clearly is in awe of his father's greatness. But as the novel progressed, I noticed that William's storytelling tone became lengthier, more sophisticated, and more skeptical of Edward's deeds.

In response to Pipidar's earliar post, I agree with you that it is important that William's tone remains pretty neutral considering he is narrating his father's affair. I think this might be connected with William's growing understanding that he will never truly know what is fact and what is fiction with his dad (can you say TOK?).

So, let me offer a new interpretation of why Edward dies three times and then almost dies again, but decides to turn into a fish instead. Each time William narrates his father's death, it was clear to me that the scene was a lot more about William than about Edward. In his death:take 1, Dr. Bennet is just as stunned by the fact that Edward is dying as his son is. however, as william ages, he begins to lose his rosy view of his father as a great hero and narrate his death in a new light. Essentially, each death scene marks William's progression in coming to understand his father as a myth and a person, from awe to anger to sadness and finally acceptance of his father's charcter.

[iloveenglish3]

Yes, Big Fish was choppy and scattered, but this particular characteristic of the novel gave the work a lot of “real” elements. (I know, kind of ironic because of all the magical realism, but hear me out!) As I was reading I felt as though the story was being told to me by an actual person. This is because in live narratives, it isn’t always the case that the narrator remembers each and every detail accurately and in chronological order. In most cases, the thoughts of the narrator are scattered and told when he or she believes is best. This point also ties into the whole idea of Big Fish being a mythical novel or the idea of Edward Bloom and his stories being myths. It’s as if the story is being passed on as a myth would: scattered and choppy.

Also, if the story were told in chronological order, it would not have the same effect on the readers. I believe that the point of the novel is to get the reader thinking about the events in the novel and assessing its occurrence. The author wants the reader to discover the lessons and myths on his or her own. If the book was written in chronological order, the reader would simply read the book as words on a page. By having a “mixed up” book, the reader must use their minds to “un-mix” it and assess the events.

So that is all I have to say for now. What do you guys think? :yawnb:

[TOKprof]

I guess I'm not replying to any particular post--maybe just a general concept.

Many of you have pointed out the father-son aspect of the novel, and I must admit that I'm really struck by the Edward-William relationship. William views his father as a troubled man in ways, as a man who does not have the strength to tackle his doubts or be honest about his feelings in ways, and as a superhero in other ways. Although William knows that so little of what his father says is true, he feels he has to convince himself of the truth of the legend in order to feel there's something to love about his father. After all, only when a son loves his father is a father a great man. But conversely, in William's case, I think that only when his father is great can he love his father, thereby making him great.

Thus, William dupes himself--and creates the myth of Edward. Is the myth true? Yes and no. Does William believe it? No, in that he knows it's false. Yes, in that he has convinced himself with his own lie. The lie has given his father an identity--and even an afterlife.

The only version of this story anyone will ever know is the story William tells. So who is Edward? Is he the travelling salesman, who happened to be a bad father, persistent guy, and probable adulterer? Or is he the big cahuna, the big fish. What does our identity depend on--what we do, or what people think we do?

Ah, if only all of us with troubled father-son relationships could re-create our fathers' pasts to suit our needs...

[mhamley]

So Neo93, I heard that you had a question about a Poseidon-like character in the novel.
Can you give me a little more info on exactly which scene you are talking about, so I can look it up for myself?

I have to say, it makes me smile to see all of the posts to this thread---especially with all of the references to things we read together last year. I miss you all!

[TOKprof]

That mhamley person sounds pretty. I like her!

On another note...

For all you TOK people out there, consider the passage on p. 151 where Wiley corrects Edward, claiming, "I won't bring up that patch of ground with the shack on it between where the road stops and the lake starts that just might be hard to find by foot or car or to see from the air, and just might not be on any map, or how whoever owns it has a piece of paper you've never seen to sign, Mr. Bloom. Because you and Al have all the truth with you over there. Don't know what I'm talking about, I guess. My apologies to you who knows better."

Anyone care to take a stab at all the wonderful TOK elements of this passage?

[coltrane]

After reading through these musings, I have one theory about the women in the novel: almost all of the "real" women are basically damsels in distress, which makes Edward the knight in shining armor. Certainly The Fight is with a drunk frat boy, but also with a "dragon" from whom he saves his future wife. Even the lady with the glass eye is in distress, and he completes the quest to retrieve her eye.

Of course, the nereid (?) he meets at Edward's Grove doesn't fit the pattern, as she rescues him.

Still left with Jenny Hill... Edward didn't really save her, as she seemed just fine out in her swamp, or an island in the middle of a swamp. Didn't Odysseus get captured by a few enchantresses on his trip back to Ithica? He eventually escaped them, but Homer never says what Circe or Calypso did when they realized their man had left them. Of course, Edward doesn't exactly leave Jenny, but is gone so long she goes back to her cave.

This doesn't help my understanding of non-fictional women at all, probably even makes it worse, but I'll settle for a better understanding of the novel for now.

[L'EngleLover]

Snippets for Big Fish

"...as Edward Bloom reinvented them, so they reinvented him" (160).
---This passage also depicts Edward as a Christ figure in the novel. In a sense, he is able to perform miracles, recreating and reinventing both himself and those around him. Like Christ promises life eternal, Edward sees the promises of immortality through the remembrance of a man's stories (20). Edward also has much hope,l one of the 3 theological virtues (Paul 13:13). He was able to create himself through the creation of other things, like Christ.

"Or godlike anyway, having created this life, haing panted the magic seed" (121)
---This passage reminded me of The Great Gatsby and how Jay Gatsby created himself and was about "his father's business", deeming him a Christ figure. Just as Gatsby transformed himself from poor James Gatz to millionaire in order to achieve his dreams of wealth and Daisy, Edward Bloom creates his ideal image of himself in his stories, desiring to become a "great man."

"It was as though, instead of protection, the family had built a prison for themselves" (97).
---This quote reminded me of the dystopian short story "Once Upon a Time" by Nadine Gordimer. In attempt to keep the Hell Dog out, one family installed an electric fence just as the man and wife implemented security fences, walls, and devices to feign off burgulars. This proved ironic; instead of keeping the families comforted and safe, they were either fenced in and in fear or left with a "bleeding mass" of a son.

and TOKprof, that mhamley sounds pretty...I like her too! we learned a lot from her last year, even if we try to deny it. one problem though...I think she's married!!!

[L'EngleLover]

Taking a stab at the TOK elements...

Wiley implies that if Mr. Bloom and Al are not aware of the "patch of ground with the shack on it between where the road stops and the lake starts" than they "know" that Edward owns every inch of the town. Assuming that knowledge is a justified and true belief, this is obviously false because it is later discovered that there is such a place. Wiley continues to say that "[Edward] and Al have all of the truth" with them "over there," reinforcing the fact that they cannot both be right, thetruth can't be "shared," as stated by the second law of thought (everything must either be or not be). Because Edward and Al "know" that the land doesn't exist, Wiley can't possibly "know what [he's] talking about" (sarcasm) and backs down.

This relates back to what we talked about on August 11th: there is no relative truth. You can have separate beliefs, but only one can be true. In this case, the place either exists or it doesn't. It can't both exist for Wiley and not exist for Edward and Al.

[L'EngleLover]

Last post, I promise.

I found another intriguing quote on page 17.

"So her was not a good candidate for death; it made being at home even worse. He tried to make the best of it in the beginning by making long-distance calls to people in strange placed all around the world,but soon he became too sick to do even that. He became just a man, a man without a job, without a story to tell, a man, I realized, I didn't know."

Even though we claim that both we as readers and William don't "know" Edward, this passage suggests that William did "know" his father. Has anyone else considered this passage for its TOK elements as well?

[IBREAL]

I thoroughly enjoyed Big Fish. I loved the short story feel to the book, but it was interesting to discover the common threads throughout the novel also. Although many of the stories were farfetched, they were still very intriguing. I believe there are many ways of interpreting the reasoning behind the four stories of Edward’s death. I think this is another technique the author uses to reveal the struggle in the father son relationship. I believe that each scene actually occurred, and with each, William was trying to find the proper way to say goodbye to his father. He was not sure what should be their last words, but he luckily had many opportunities to decide. The final telling of Edward’s death or metamorphosis, I feel was perfect for their relationship. William had always heard his father’s extravagant stories, but was never sure if he truly believed them. He was able to be a part of this magical ending or new beginning, depending on how you look at it, of his father. He will now and forever have this special connection with Edward. This was the best goodbye there could be. He did not have to think of the perfect final conversation that he knew his father would just make a joke about. This is my take on the four death stories. What do you guys think?
I totally agree with you. I don't think that Edward or William truly knew how they wanted to say goodbye. I think that Edward letting William be apart of his legendary life is what truly brought them together and made them closer than they had ever been. I also think the book would have let the readers down if he didn't die in an interesting way. However one thing I didn't like about Edward even though this is totally changing the subject was the fact that he left women out of his life. He left Sandy and Jenny for long periods of time. Both didn't get to say the proper goodbye. :(

[IBREAL]

I agree I think that the layout was cool in that there was no order. It kinda reminds me of how I write so I guess there is hope if I wanna be a writer. I think that reading books like this makes us apreciate books like Balzac but it also gives a break from reality because it makes your imagination start to explore the different ideas.

[IBREAL]

I think this book makes women look weak. I didn't like that at all. The only one that seem strong is the mermaid who has the shortest stories about her. But we all know that women are some of the strongest people in the world even though men pretend to be :).

[TOKprof]

L'EngleLover, I'm impressed and pleased with what you've done so far with TOK and BF. Now, you and others consider the role of perception in the passage with Wiley. How does what Wiley "knows"--as well as what Bloom doesn't "know"--relate to what he can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. Is it appropriate for him to use those as evidence in this case?

And as for your post #26, excellent thinking! I would add to your question: to what extent does William know his father, and in what ways? Can you know a man that you have little to no factual information about? And if so, what does that say about the role of intuition--or just "gut" feelings--in our quest for knowledge?

[TOKprof]

Coltrane, I agree that women are made to look like damsels in this novel, but I don't know if Sandra is covered by that. Sure, she's rescued from Don Price, but she also has the strength to rear her son with virtually no help from Edward. Any parent knows the "strength" required there. She also tries to protect William from Ed's death in at least half of the death takes.

So is Wallace saying that a woman's greatest strengths are as the muse (in the case of the Neried) and as the mother (in Sandra's case)? In both cases, while still demeaning on some level, Wallace seems to me to identifying a power in women that he thinks (or at least William thinks) men simply can't possess.

[coltrane]

I heard a rumor that maybe the nymph/mermaid is a stand in for the Greek goddesses who used to protect their favorite mortals. Athena and Odysseus, Aphrodite and Paris, Anonymous Sea Nymph and Edward Bloom. So, yeah, there's power for ya.

I did see a real strength in Sandra Templeton-Bloom, too. She chose Edward, probably defied a number of family traditions in eloping with him, and in the "My Father's Death" chapters is a real Southern lady of class and grace-under-pressure, strong without saying much.

And I'm pretty sure Jenny Hill is a stand-in for Calypso, also a strong woman from mythology who learned the lesson, "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it is yours. Either that, or Poseidon blows it back to you, and by then you were over it anyway, and you throw it back." By the time Edward came back to Jenny, she was back in her "swamp" or at least had brought the swamp to her, and was over her love for him.

So I was a little off in that damsel in distress theory, except that I think Edward would like for them to be damsels in distress, but they are more complicated than he thinks.

[TOKprof]

Umm...Coltrane, one thing that we focus on in my class is that anyone is allowed to think anyone else is crazy, but he/she must offer reasons for his/her assesment.

I'm just sayin'...

OK, now Coltrane's changed his post, so I can't stand by the previous comment. But I'll keep it up for entertainment purposes.

[Cerebus]

I didn't like the book at all because to me Wallace got caught up in his myths and didn't really pay attention to the main storyline. The book in my opinion is about a guy who is on death bed and he starts telling his son so called stories from his past which most have hints to mythical figures or have characters that are similar or were based on them. To conclude it was a book of myths and I didn't like that much.

[Neo93]

So Neo93, I heard that you had a question about a Poseidon-like character in the novel.
Can you give me a little more info on exactly which scene you are talking about, so I can look it up for myself?

I noticed a possible poseidon charcter in the chapter "In which he has a dream" which begins on page 133. The point at which I first noticed possible mythology was about midway on page 135. This chapter had that strange sense of unreality that I've started to notice is a common thread among works with dream scenes, but here's the passage I used:

"But in the middle of it all sat in older man in a lawn chair, overseeing everything. I'd never seen him before to my knowledge (or so went my father's dream) but he looked somehow familiar--a stranger, and yet no foreigner to me...He had a thick white beard and glasses, and he wore a fishing cap, in which several handmade lures were pinned. And so as he seemed to be some kind of leader, I went to see him first" (Wallace 135).

I'm kind of embarrased to mention it, but one of the reasons I identified this guy as Poseideon was because I've also read the Perseus Jackson series, a children's series that modernizes some greek mythology and creates a story similar to the original myths. In the story, poseidon is personified and characterized in a really similar way. I also noticed throughout this chapter that there were a lot of Poseidenesque (that is an awesome word) comments made by this man. I have to admit that I don't even know most of the main greek gods and goddesses, so I'm no mythology authority, but this jumped out at me for some strange reason.

thanks for your interest!

[Neo93]

That mhamley person sounds pretty. I like her!

On another note...

For all you TOK people out there, consider the passage on p. 151 where Wiley corrects Edward, claiming, "I won't bring up that patch of ground with the shack on it between where the road stops and the lake starts that just might be hard to find by foot or car or to see from the air, and just might not be on any map, or how whoever owns it has a piece of paper you've never seen to sign, Mr. Bloom. Because you and Al have all the truth with you over there. Don't know what I'm talking about, I guess. My apologies to you who knows better."

Anyone care to take a stab at all the wonderful TOK elements of this passage?

Ah, TOK is following me. I guess it's a good thing that I am comforted by the (possible) existence of something.

Since L'EngleLover already did a good job of covering K = JTB in this passage, I'll take a shot at analyzing it using the "good reasons for knowledge".

1. Sense perception- Here, both al and Ed use sense perception as justification/evidence for thier claim that Ed owns the entire town. Basically, they have evidence that there isn't a house there because they have never percieved it and have no evidence to the contrary. Wiley challenges this justification by making the very valid argument that thier perception could have been flawed, as it was.

2. Logic- neither party explicitly points to logic as evidence for thier case, althou8gh it is undoubtedly occuring beneath the surface of the passage.

(skip Intuition and self awareness for now)

5. Memory- Both parties are using thier memories of the layout of the town, their mental map, to evaluate the likelihood of Wiley being truthful. although memory can be flawed, it sevres as a good basis for knowledge because it just adds more evidence.

6. Authority- this basis for knowledge is extremely important here, because as the former sheriff, Wiley has very intimate knowledge of the town of Specter. In fact you might even call him an authority. In this situation, Wiley gains credibility because of his long history in the town, where Ed has only arrived recently. This basis of knowledge exerts such a strong pull on Edward that he launches an effort to discover the truth, and finds that Wiley's knowledge satisfied K = JTB while his did not.

7. Consensus Gentium- this plays an equally strong part in this situation. While Wiley has the strength of authority as a basis for his knowledge, Ed has Consensus Gentium because of the support of Al. Basically, Ed's thought processes are "if Al knows that I own the whole town, and I know it too, that makes it more likely to be true".

There are a couple of my thoughts about this passage. Now I'm going to attempt to prove that my homework is not the "something" that exists.

[TOKprof]

Neo,

Excellent answer with this one. I'm especially impressed with your #6. Well done!

Now, I'm most interested in one line of the passage: "Because you and Al have all the truth with you over there."

I mean, that line, to me, is just begging to be talked about. L'EngleLover has already explored it a bit, but I think there might be more to say. Any takers?

[TOKprof]

Another comment from L'EngleLover that I just love:

"Or godlike anyway, having created this life, haing panted the magic seed" (121)
---This passage reminded me of The Great Gatsby and how Jay Gatsby created himself and was about "his father's business", deeming him a Christ figure. Just as Gatsby transformed himself from poor James Gatz to millionaire in order to achieve his dreams of wealth and Daisy, Edward Bloom creates his ideal image of himself in his stories, desiring to become a "great man."

This is great stuff, and L'Engle, who I know has some knowledge of the Platonic ideal and "form," has touched on something that I think we can really explore. To what extent is Ed seeking his Platonic form? But maybe more interestingly, to what extent does Ed's "form" depend on William's PERCEPTION of Ed? Can our ideal self only happen because of someone else? Hmmm...

[mzmarymack]

It seems as though, in Ed's dying days, nothing is more important than being remembered. More specifically, being remembered as Super Dad: strong, compassionate, heroic, righteous, clever, etc. Therefore, Will's perception of his dad is everything. These outrageous tales of Ed serve to personify Ed's good characteristics into superpowers. The kryptonite in this story is time. Time is hindering Ed from becoming his Platonic form. Time that Ed should have spent with Will is being put to better use. Instead of being Will's dad, Ed was saving the world: a little girl from a devil dog, a town from a giant, a lady's glass eye from young thieves, etc. Yeah, that kinda sucks that Ed chose the world over Will, but it's justified.

[TOKprof]

mzmarymack,

Why do you think's Ed's choosing "the world over Will" is justified? That's an interesting conclusion.

I wonder how Edward thought to balance his many versions of his own Platonic form. Was his goal really to be "Super Dad" or was it to be the mythical hero of the world? Can he be both at the same time? And even if William ultimately "believes in" but doesn't "believe" Ed's Platonic form, has William really duped himself into thinking Edward was a better father than he was? Granted, this book was set in a time period where there were different expectations of fathers than there are today. Edward's job would have been to provide for his family, which financially he seems to do, even if emotionally he does not.

[mzmarymack]

Okay question:
Why is it okay for Ed to have two wives? I mean he marries Jenny, right?
Do you think that this shows the separation b/w the real world, where he marries Sandy, and the unreal world, where he marries Jenny?

I think it's justified to Will because...
Some people will accept when crappy things happen to them, but they won't be willing to accept the same for another person. Is that confusing?
Like you accept the fact that your mom is a teacher and she is going to go harder on you than any other student. However, it doesn't seem as fair if your friend's mom, who is a teacher, grades your friend more harshly.
Will seems like that kind of guy.

It makes Ed happy to be deemed a good father. His true goal, though? Ed seems like the person who will go out of his way to make others happy at his own expense. But this doesn't apply to his own family. So I think Ed wants to be remembered as exceptional. A great person. He wants to amaze the world. I think he's going for the shock effect. For example, there's integrity and character, and then there's Ed's integrity. I'm referring to the scene when he was determined to sweep the floor while he was bleeding. He refused to accept any help. That's pride to an extreme

[mhamley]

Neo93
I think you've got something with that being a Poseidon character, especially since Wallace admittedly bases much of Big Fish on The Odyssey.

Check out these interviews with Wallace on the novel:
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/transcript-of-my-first-meeting-with-daniel-wallace
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20041011/dwallace-a.shtml