Time Travel!

[Houston]

Why do you think DiSclafani chose to tell us this story by switching back and forth between 1957 and CeCe and Joan's childhood? Did the time traveling bother you or did it add to the sense of mystery?

[Helen]

I don't know why the author chose to use the "switching back and forth" format except that it seems to be de rigueur for today's authors. So many of the books I have read recently employ this tactic. In some cases it works, in others, it is just irritating.

I must say that I was not terribly intrigued by "mystery" of Joan's disappearance, i.e the year spent in Hollywood. For those of us who grew up in the 1950's, when a girl disappeared from the town or school for a year, we all knew she was "in trouble," that is going to have a child out of wedlock.

The description of Houston in the '50's was interesting and I thank Dan for the photos and links to the sites.

I am looking forward to the next book!

[HPL Dan]

One of my favorite things about this book is that it has such a non-linear structure, where the plot involves two different and interwoven timelines. When authors do this well, as I think DiSclafani does here, the fractured timeline makes for some interesting back and forth between the narrative threads. In this case, we learn more about some of the events unfolding in 1957 before we learn what actually occurred in 1950. We know early on that Joan left Houston , and that Cece is happily married (or at least relatively so) in 1957, but there is an open gulf of what lead up to Joan’s disappearance and reappearance, which we only discover later in the novel. This intentional disruption of linear storytelling provides a way for the future to impact what we understand of the past. For example, narratively, we learn about Furlow’s declining mental state in the chapter prior to learning exactly how Cece’s actual father dealt with her mother’s illness and impending death. I think this provides tension to both storylines, as events in the relative present (1957) foreshadow problems in the past (1950). DiSclafani’s decision to fracture the timeline gives the reader an opportunity to compare how Cece deals with her surrogate semi-parents, Mary and Furlow, versus how she deals with her actual parents. It also highlights the differences between Cece’s relationship to the Fortiers versus Joan’s relationship to her own parents. In response, the events from the past give context to the events unfolding in the present.

Another example of the interplay between story arcs is where Cece relates the events of her conversation with Joan for the first time since she’s been effectively out of touch for two weeks in the chapter immediately before we learn of the accident in the bathtub and Joan’s intervention in giving Cece’s mother enough painkiller to expedite her death. We have both the growing distance between the two in 1957 and an event when they were very intimately close in handling Cece’s mother in her final days in 1950. There is intentional dissonance in the way the two stories unfold here, and DiSclafani artfully juxtaposes these two events here. By that point, we are also invested in seeing how events in the 1957 story arc might be an echo of the events from the past. I am intrigued at seeing where the two main narrative threads take us, knowing full well things likely won't end well for at least one, if not both, of our main characters. It's like a train wreck you know is coming and you cannot look away. I actually love a non-linear or parallel plot construction, when done right, so I really enjoyed this aspect of DiSclafani’s novel and found it to be very successfully pulled off.