IB Big Fish IB

[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?

[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?