Maheen’s answer to “How important is it, in terms of both understanding and appreciating Demon Copperhead, to have read…” > Likes and Comments
9 likes · Like
I know what you mean, but Kingsolver goes out of her way to make the parallels impossible to miss. She clearly intends this book to be judged as a companion to Copperfield. Though I'm not sure this is beneficial.
Forget about looking for or caring about "parallels," they are two separate books, meant to stand on their own & not be judged as companions at all.
The parallels are very intentional and are part of the fun. It's true that each book can be enjoyed as standalone but the many, many parallels are meant to add an extra layer of enjoyment for those who have happened to have read David Copperfield.
Most people haven't read David Copperfield since high school, so probably don't even remember it enough to notice, but it can read it on its own, or read while looking for parallels if that seems fun to anyone?!
Not sure I would call it a "disservice" since Kingsolver intentionally wrote the book using the characters and structure of David Copperfield. Even the names in her book derive from Dickens names.
ok, we get the clever use of the names already, but Kingsolver did not set out to write a carbon copy of David Copperfield. Why would anyone want that or even enjoy that? Too much over-analyzing, it stands on it's own merit!
Actually, Kingsolver says that she did set out to write a modern version of David Copperfield. In a recent Instagram post she says she began with a spreadsheet, tracking the original "chapter and verse."
Yes, but her "modern version" with different settings & events is not a carbon copy...kind of how West Side Story isn't a carbon copy of Romeo & Juliet. The book is popular, whether for its parallels or for standing on its own, & backlash from readers who claim to know every single thing that's going to happen has been minimal.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
IvanOpinion
(new)
Dec 05, 2022 10:15AM
I know what you mean, but Kingsolver goes out of her way to make the parallels impossible to miss. She clearly intends this book to be judged as a companion to Copperfield. Though I'm not sure this is beneficial.
reply
|
flag
Forget about looking for or caring about "parallels," they are two separate books, meant to stand on their own & not be judged as companions at all.
The parallels are very intentional and are part of the fun. It's true that each book can be enjoyed as standalone but the many, many parallels are meant to add an extra layer of enjoyment for those who have happened to have read David Copperfield.
Most people haven't read David Copperfield since high school, so probably don't even remember it enough to notice, but it can read it on its own, or read while looking for parallels if that seems fun to anyone?!
Not sure I would call it a "disservice" since Kingsolver intentionally wrote the book using the characters and structure of David Copperfield. Even the names in her book derive from Dickens names.
ok, we get the clever use of the names already, but Kingsolver did not set out to write a carbon copy of David Copperfield. Why would anyone want that or even enjoy that? Too much over-analyzing, it stands on it's own merit!
Actually, Kingsolver says that she did set out to write a modern version of David Copperfield. In a recent Instagram post she says she began with a spreadsheet, tracking the original "chapter and verse."
Yes, but her "modern version" with different settings & events is not a carbon copy...kind of how West Side Story isn't a carbon copy of Romeo & Juliet. The book is popular, whether for its parallels or for standing on its own, & backlash from readers who claim to know every single thing that's going to happen has been minimal.
