How to Break Article Noun -- Whole Book Discussion

[Marc]

We'll discuss the whole book here. It's a short book, but dense in its ideas, approaches, ripples...

Feel free to kick off the discussions with questions, reactions, commentary.

How do you interpret that title and did your interpretation change as, or after, you read the book?

[Jenna]

I haven't finished but I do want to say how much I love the title. Has that madlib reference for me, where different minds take you in different directions, totally changing the narrative. Seems perfect to capture the way two people fail to share a perspective no matter how intimate: a heart? the habit?

[Stacia]

I finished section 1 today.

Random thoughts:

Both characters have double letters in their name. Somehow it seems like a purposeful choice on behalf of the author but I am not yet sure of its significance.

The long quote in the intro thread was helpful and I had wondered about the table of contents set-up (which I keep flipping back to like a map when I normally don't do that); I am noticing the math references so it feels like the numbers and numbering systems are important.

I was put off by the third person writing in the Acknowledgments.

I like the circling around and revisiting of images with each visit giving an altered view.

[Bretnie]

I really like the first section's retelling of this couple's story, but it was also super confusing and hard to keep my tired brain engaged.

I appreciated the background discussion since I think it'll help me approach the rest of the book with a different perspective.

Somehow I totally missed the math references, so I'm gonna look for em as I read on!

And Stacia, I am totally flipping back like a map to the table of contents. Unfortunately it doesn't help me get un-lost, but I think I'll keep doing it and maybe it'll come together in the next 2/3.

[Bretnie]

Oh, also, Jenna, the title was one of the main things that drew me to the book!

[Hugh]

I read the whole book today, but I am really not sure what to make of it - I will think about it before reviewing and commenting.

[Zeynep T.]

While searching about the writer I came across a thesis (I think?) on googlescholar. I couldn't reach the document but there was an introduction/explanation which you can read down below.

"Italo Calvino, the author of Invisible Cities, has a character Qwfwq who forgot what happened after falling in love. The ecstatic experience of love overwhelmed his memory. The thread of story was lost. The characters in this story are also unable to recall their relationship. They instead believe several different, conflicting accounts, which are set down here in this novella. The two characters here are unable to belong to one another due to the female’s obsession with quantum physics and the male’s equally detrimental obsessions, both corporeal and ethereal."

[Jenna]

Section one is the best. It is the one where the least happens and so the emotions are the most vivid - tiny moments that take up all of time. Eating cereal. Scratching the back of his neck with a key. Curled inaccessible under a white blanket. Chun locates the reader so specifically, for me that allows the scene to expand in every direction, provides a way in to the characters perspective even as the inability to share a perspective with each other is the point.

You are looking at me and I am looking away from me.

Also, how cool that their nicknames are I and No, exactly the capturing their natures and the reason that they cant relate to each other.

[Ang]

I read this and enjoyed some sections but perhaps it is too experimental for me. I didn't see the point of all the Physics for example, and didn't enjoy reading those.

[Marc]

Jenna, The perspectives issue and the names caught my attention immediately, as well, which I think, actually ties in rather nicely with the physics analogies. You cannot both observe the same relationship—it’s not like an external object you can both watch or analyze from the same vantage point. Love is also a bit like the Higgs Boson in terms of it being theoretical but undetectable/unseen. We believe in it and yet it has no material form. You cannot measure it, hold it, even adequately describe it.

At first I looked up the etymologies for their full names and found much more about Isaac than I did about Noelle (Noelle is French for "Christmas" and biblical for "the Lord's birthday;" Isaac is Hebrew for "he laughs/will laugh" and was Abraham's son whom God asked to be sacrificed in the bible---a lengthy and utterly fascinating but not completely relevant digression on Isaac here: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Isaac.html).

And then, as Jenna stated, those nicknames! Noelle calls him I, which is like an erasure of any difference between the two lovers. It's a total identification (even confusion?) with Isaac. Isaac calls her No, which is a negation or rejection of her.

Other aspects of Part I that stood out to me. I loved the sort of poetic repetition of returning to the same spot and point in time ("Can you close the door and sit down? Something bad.") It had the effect of deja vu or even time travel as if stuck in some sort of loop forcing them back to this splitting point. And the phrase "Something bad." was both awkward and menacing but vague ("bad" is such a relative term and can be superficial news such as, "they didn't have the chips you wanted at the store," to soul crushing: "your dad called and said your sister was killed in a car accident").

Their split seems to be at the artistic/worldview level, as well, although I was never able to tie this in any way that made it integral to my reading/understanding (I use that last term quite loosely).

What of Isaac's professions (lion tamer, butcher, pilot... )--did you take these literally, metaphorically, or just plain head-scratchingly?

[Jenna]

Marc wrote: "Jenna, The perspectives issue and the names caught my attention immediately, as well, which I think, actually ties in rather nicely with the physics analogies. You cannot both observe the same rela..."

Totally agree about the circling narrative in part 1; for me that infused the reading experience with the sense of a fractured moment in time, that moment when bad news hits and your impressions are no longer linear because you are not processing, everything seems to circle in your mind at the same time and in retrospect all you have are fragments.

I also really liked the unpredictable ways Noelle reacts in part 1 - "Am I the snow crunching or the boot?" Even as the reader I said, wait, what? This takes what should be a totally concrete conversation about their relationship and turns it into a powerful illustration of their failure to communicate, fun surrealism mixed with real sorrow for the lack of connection, not two people walking but the dark trees and the sparkling sun.

Overall, I thought that Chun is more effective when she is explaining less. The later sections were too narrative and did not give that same sense of sharing a perspective with two people at once, we only get Noelle. I found the more glancing references to physics to make effective metaphors, how the act of observing changes what is observed, and like you say Marc, the belief in something that holds it all together that we cant see; but the longer meditation on how we are mostly space and therefore touch is an illusion seemed a bit heavy handed.

[Marc]

Jenna wrote: "Overall, I thought that Chun is more effective when she is explaining less. The later sections were too narrative and did not give that same sense of sharing a perspective with two people at once, we only get Noelle..."
I couldn't quite put my finger on why the later chapters didn't seem as strong or as engaging to me and you've nailed it here. They are less poetic and surreal and perhaps too explanatory.

"the longer meditation on how we are mostly space and therefore touch is an illusion seemed a bit heavy handed."
Someone recently shared an essay on Wuthering Heights that dealt with the problematic nature of the romance and boiled down to saying that the dissolution of self is a sign of an unhealthy relationship. I was sort of torn as to reading the illusion of touch as yet another sign of Noelle's wanting to be so close that she felt their molecules had to touch (or, I suppose, it could be that Isaac keeps her at such a distance their closeness makes the invisible physics of distance a felt reality).

Did they have a child, did they not have a child?!! There was no banjo on anyone's knee to confirm any of this...

[Jenna]

Marc wrote: "Did they have a child, did they not have a child?!! There was no banjo on anyone's knee to confirm any of this"

I prefer to believe the "reality" of the first version and see the others as Noelle trying to write out a version that "makes sense" in order to understand her feelings. She tries out a more conventional emphasis on infidelity against a stay at home mom (who has a child in whom to subsume her identity), she tries out a very abstract writing herself literally back into a separate existence, she tries out a melancholy abroad in a hotel room (banished physically not just emotionally), she tries a fairy tale but the nouns are missing etc.

I am going to go back and re-read part VII: Hollow, Marc, because I think that this section goes back to what you saw in the discussion of molecules and space, and seems to be Noelle's most vivid/personal version of what the relationship meant to her. Especially the poem in #3:

"I hope that you enjoyed the spaces that we made.
Sometimes our names fit together into new words.
Erasing your name leaves mine, just jumbled up.
Our bodies made spaces. Our minds made spaces.

The space between two bodies can contain cosmic
distances or moods. Gravity will or will not hold
things together. When I loved you, my fingers touched
infinite skies we inhabited: clean space, pure space.

I could lie down in that created space,
my fingers brushing the sparking clouds"

[Lesley]

plainzt wrote: "While searching about the writer I came across a thesis (I think?) on googlescholar. I couldn't reach the document but there was an introduction/explanation which you can read down below.

"Italo C..."
I had a look at this. I believe How To Break Article Noun is the thesis. It was submitted by Carolyn Chun for her MFA at LSU. So the abstract you quoted is her summary. You couldn’t reach the thesis at LSU because they only retain copyright for a year & it was submitted in 2009. Hope this helps.

[Marc]

Jenna wrote: "I prefer to believe the "reality" of the first version and see the others as Noelle trying to write out a version that "makes sense" in order to understand her feelings."
That makes sense to me. It's kind of how I read Isaac's professions. I'm not sure if any of them were real/true, but when Noelle looks back on the beginning/positive part of their relationship, he's a pilot (exciting with the power to literally lift her up and take her flying on adventures). The other professions seemed like negative metaphors for their relationship (or his impact on her): lion tamer and butcher (I believe she even makes an analogy at one point about him cutting her up or her being on his chopping block).

Definitely want to reread a couple of these sections if not the whole book. I think I rushed a bit through the last two parts.

[Marc]

plainzt wrote: "While searching about the writer I came across a thesis (I think?) on googlescholar. I couldn't reach the document but there was an introduction/explanation which you can read down below.

"Italo C..."
Bringing Qwfwq into the discussion opens up some fascinating possibilities as he narrates quite a few Calvino stories and, I believe, it's been debated whether he's changes with the stories/experiences or whether it makes more sense to see him as a sort of universal constant. (I've no take on this, and my memory is too crappy to remember much about Qwfwq as I was more taken with Calvino's novels than his short stories.) But it seems like the reader could ask somewhat related questions about Noelle: Is there more than one Noelle? If one Noelle (or one of her vantage points) more "real/true" than the others? How reliable is any of this? Which members/moderators in this thread are bots?

OK, maybe I got a little carried away there... Or maybe, the algorithm that runs me did... :o

[Lesley]

Marc wrote: "plainzt wrote: "While searching about the writer I came across a thesis (I think?) on googlescholar. I couldn't reach the document but there was an introduction/explanation which you can read down ..."
I’m caught up in the idea of infinite realities at the moment. In fact, I’m wondering if the break-up is just one reality & not the reality.
I looked at Carolyn Chun’s twin blog & I’m pretty sure parts of the novel are autobiographical.
I haven’t finished the book yet though & at the moment my thoughts are far from structured.
I feel I’m missing a lot by only having a rudimentary understanding of quantum physics.

[Bretnie]

I finished the book this weekend and caught up on everyone's very insightful discussion!

Lesley, I left with a feeling of infinite realities as well. We have so many choices, and sometimes those choices lead to the same result, and sometimes they don't. I loved the repetition, which kind of sealed that idea of infinite realities for me.

I struggled with parts of the second half where it became more narrative and them randomly weird (what was the sugar pile chapter?!)

Overall, I'm glad I picked up the book again after setting it down, and appreciating everyone's insights, but questioning how much experimental fiction my brain is up for in the future. :)

[Stacia]

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. This is definitely a book that engenders parsing.

I finished the book today. I felt like the book gave various ephemeral versions, giving glimpses of the disintegration. Are they real or imagined? Both? Multiple or perhaps infinite variations occurred. And that makes sense because a relationship will always look different depending on your vantage point in object (person), place, & time (does time change your memory of events?), & other ways.

I think the first section of the book was the strongest with some especially beautiful & intriguing imagery; I felt less & less in touch with the characters the further the book progressed.

I know pretty much nothing about quantum physics but isn't that the field where it posits that it is possible for particles to eventually shift/be in enough different locations that eventually everything would be aligned correctly & that would enable you to walk through a wall? (String theory?) The possibility is there, regardless of how remote it is. Is Chun positing that love is like quantum physics in that sometimes we may align (or not) – we may bump into each other and/or pass through each other in life? Regardless, any alignment is fleeting & is subject to constant change/flux? [I'm explaining it in a very clumsy manner. Sorry about that!].

I can appreciate some of the experimental writing & style, but I felt a bit remote from the text & characters. Interesting reading, though.

[Catherine]

I finished the book today. While short, it demands to be read slowly. Here's the review I posted:

This moving, insightful book is not for everyone. More poetry than prose, it explores the pain and confusion that comes from a breakup, using many different literary modalities and techniques. She examines not only what happened, but what might have happened, and in the end is it not possible for the reader to extract a simple timeline of events. The writing is lovely, moving, but impressionistic.

[Bretnie]

What did you guys make of the repeated quote: "Underneath is what the up there was." I kept re-reading that sentence and couldn't de-code it.

[LindaJ^]

The reality has been buried and all than now exists are a variety of stories about the reality of Nicole and Simon.

[Marc]

Bretnie wrote: "What did you guys make of the repeated quote: "Underneath is what the up there was." I kept re-reading that sentence and couldn't de-code it."

I'm not sure I ever made complete sense of this, but something about it was making me feel like it had to do with the kind of relativity of language and perspective. E.g., As soon as you look "up there" or acknowledge an "up" you are "underneath." And that repeats as you change position (the "up there" becomes "underneath" to another "up there). Not saying this is a correct interpretation, it's just where my head went.

[Marc]

What, if anything, did you all make of the symbolism of the fish? It recurs in various forms (sculpture/ornament, fish print on the pilot's tie).

[Jenna]

I initially thought about it as an infinity symbol, but a quick google found this much more interesting tidbit from 2016:

"According to a team of French physicists, it’s possible to translate a huge number of problems in game theory into the language of quantum mechanics. In a new paper, they show that electrons and fish follow the exact same mathematics. The example physicists led by Igor Swiecicki from France's Laboratoire de Physique Théorique Orsay use is a school of fish that want to stay near each other while also looking independently for food.

The fish generally move as a single group, with a bunch of individuals moving around pretty randomly within it. Every once in a while, a fish might see a piece of food away from everyone else, and swim over on its own to grab it, before swimming back to its school for safety.

This means that the fish have some distribution; they’re concentrated in the group and rarer as you get farther away from it. In other words, if you pick a particular spot in space, there’s some probability that you chose somewhere with a fish and some probability you chose somewhere without a fish. As the school swims past your spot, the probability of finding a fish there goes up. After the school moves beyond that point, the probability goes down.

The probability of finding a fish could have evolved in any number of complicated ways with equations that had never before been written down. But it doesn’t. The probability of finding a fish changes exactly like the probability of finding an electron does. The fish follow Schrödinger’s equation, Swiecicki and his team report."