Jilly: So can I just say up front, I'm always
pre-skeptical of books that are set in the recentish (read: around when the
author was probably a teen) past for no particular reason.
MK: Ha. That's probably fair. It's hard to
view recent history as appropriate for historical fiction.
Jilly: I mean, so the author knows which bands
would have made Park appropriately "cool" for 1986 Omaha. That's not
enough of a reason to choose that historical moment
MK: Okay, but I do think putting your
characters in a mixtape era makes sense. It's hard to get that kind of visceral
pull in a contemporary setting. "Here, I made you this spotify
playlist."
Jilly: Agreed. And it would be hard for her to
get the same level of cut-offness for Eleanor. The concept of having no phone
line--period--is just difficult to conceive of for any socio-economic level,
these days
MK: Yes. It's a fantastic marker for her
poverty level. Although I wonder how well that works for an actual teen reader.
The idea of not having a Walkman as a socio-economic indicator.
Jilly: Well right, that's the thing that always
knee-jerks me on recent-past books; the hallmarks you use may work for a
crossover adult audience--the visceral feel of a mixtape you mentioned, the
poverty level, the Smiths being cool--but they don't resonate for modern teens
precisely because it's nothing they've ever experienced. I BARELY experienced
that, and I'm an '84 baby. A 2000 baby is so far past it that it may as well be
1940s Russia, or 1804 Jane Austen
MK: I think teen readers overlook those,
though. The emotional pull works even if you're glossing over the references that
don't really work for you.
Jilly: Well she does totally nail the feeling
of falling for someone. There's hardly even a plot, but I couldn't stop
reading, and I think it's 100% because her descriptions of what it feels like
(as per her own promise) let us remember what it's like to be that age, and be
in love. Which I think applies even if you are that age--nostalgia for
experiences that might be currently available is legit, too
MK: Absolutely. I'm ordinarily not a huge
fan of alternating POV (I get confused really easily, as I did whenever she
shifted within a single chapter), but I love the way she captured how anxious
they both are about themselves and each other, but how little they understand
the other's emotions.
Jilly: Right, and the momentousness of it all.
The sense that you can't get enough of this person and it's almost physical:
the desire to EAT Park; the embarrassment at being with Eleanor, but
simultaneous inability to stop touching her hair; the sense of having no
control over your experience because of this other person.
MK: And the experience that suddenly your
body isn't even your own because you never had someone touch you before. I
think Park's viewpoint is really strong in that regard--he's just consumed by
these relatively innocent touches and can't even handle thinking about going
further.
Jilly: Which I think is a good
counterpoint--not that teens should think sex is taboo, but the idea that all
boys always want only sex, that they CAN'T be embarrassed or nervous or unsure
about it, seems negative to me
MK: YES. It is very very rare to get a male POV
with a budding relationship that isn't all about being horny.
Jilly: But do we think boys would ever read
this book? You would know more about this, as a librarian who actually
ENCOUNTERS teen boys. I mostly avoid them on buses and sidewalks.
MK: I think the cover would detract a lot of
boys. I think there are absolutely boys who would read it on recommendation,
but it reads as a little girly.
Jilly: And the write-up is all about romance, which
just vibes "girl" at any age.
MK: Which is really too bad, because I think
there are a lot of other ways to sell the story.
Jilly: Right. The cultural disconnect, and
feeling of outsiderness that both characters have is definitely something I
could see having cross-gender appeal to a sensitive, Park-esque boy, at least.
MK: The music, too.
Jilly: Totally. Okay, so here's my elephant in
the room: do we buy that a teenager as seemingly cynical as Eleanor would
believe she's in love? I may have been the only teenager ever with this
particular brand of precocity, but I definitely remember feeling--AT THE
TIME--that teenagers weren't REALLY in love, and that it was kind of idiotic to
call things that.
MK: Oh I don't think she believes that at
all.
Jilly: But don't we think the three-word postcard at the
end had to be "I love you?"
MK: See, I don't love that ending. Because I
totally buy her thinking they're doomed from the start.
Jilly: I didn’t either! It felt like a cop-out
to me. Like a concession, rather than what she really felt would happen
MK: That's a really apt way to put it.
Writing the postcard feels like her giving in.
Jilly: Both the author AND Eleanor
MK: Yes!
Jilly: I have to Giver this one (which is my way of saying ask about the
after-the-end): do you think they get back together?
MK: (My mom loves to Giver.) I think the ending implies that they do, which is super
unfair.
Jilly: It seems like kind of a cowardly ending.
MK: I really think it's a disservice to the
rest of the book, which gives a lot of room for things to be uncomfortable and
unsettled.
Jilly: And it closes off a much more realistic
experience, to my mind: you will love someone first, and you will probably lose
them. Not losing them in a way stiffs the characters. Do they not grow or move
on? It amber-seals them. I feel like that's what first love did for me: it may
or may not have been real, but it taught me about ME.
MK: Yeah. I think the rest of the book does
a really good job at showing you that "love" doesn't fix the rest of
your life, it just provides a little cocoon from it for a while.
Jilly: And it shows that even in still-loving relationships--like
Park's parents'--love isn't that intense for long. They kiss every day, but
it's as much habit as passion, I feel like.
MK: Good point.
Jilly: Overall, though, I loved it. She flubbed
the landing a bit, but it was a really touching book.
MK: Agreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment