Setting

[Dawn]

When do you think this story takes place? I can't figure it out.

[Teresa]

I could not tell where or when it happened and that kind of put me off. I thought if I knew more about the setting things would have made more sense especially the war part.

[Phil]

I go into it at length in my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Basically, I decided it was a fictitious setting. My two best theories are that it is a vigilante war over illegal immigration or a guerrilla war against an occupying North Korean army.

I didn't like the book, so wondering about this question was actually my favorite part of the reading experience.

[Teresa]

My feeling was it might have been dystopian in the future which could account for the war references. I didn't hate it but didn't love it the way I had expected to. Some of my students are enjoying it probably because they don't have the background knowledge to question the setting.

[Josh]

At one point the book says they are fighting over water. The woman who cares for Peter fought in the war, so female soldiers seems commonplace. The author goes out of her way to avoid using place names or references to time periods. There are automobiles and landmines. Those are the things I know.

[Phil]

Josh wrote: "At one point the book says they are fighting over water. The woman who cares for Peter fought in the war, so female soldiers seems commonplace. The author goes out of her way to avoid using place n..."

We're all being a little silly here. The truth is that Pennypacker kept it vague because she was too lazy to create a setting that made any sense at all. Explaining the setting in this novel is like trying to explain why the trains to people ratio is so weird on the Island of Sodor.

[Lea Ann]

It could happen anywhere. That's the point.

[Phil]

Lea wrote: "It could happen anywhere. That's the point."

The problem is that it could happen nowhere. There is no setting in the past or present that matches Pennypacker's description, and it's a serious stretch to think that it could happen in the future. You could argue that Pennypacker was trying to write a parable like The Lottery or something, but the contradictory nature of her details distracts from the point she's trying to make.

[Lea Ann]

Phil wrote: "Lea wrote: "It could happen anywhere. That's the point."

The problem is that it could happen nowhere. There is no setting in the past or present that matches Pennypacker's description, and it's a ..."

Why does the setting have to be defined?
Much like The Lottery, the universal truths of the story are what I connected with.

[Phil]

In The Lottery, Jackson uses concrete details that complement each other and create a setting that drives home the main ideas. In Pax, Pennypacker uses random, contradictory details that distract from her main ideas. The only setting I can think of that is as randomly composited is The Gunslinger, and in that one King has the courtesy to explain that the setting is an interdimensional intersection. Without an explanation, Pax comes across as lazy and disorganized.