This is a comment I made on a review of I Am Pilgrim, by Terry Hayes. The second part of my comment is what I would like to address here. Has anyone encountered this seemingly innovative literary device? I don’t recall such and it seems preposterous to me unless, of course, the narrator is some sort of supernatural entity which is certainly not the case here. Any thoughts?
___________
I agree that the book is riveting and the writer is one of rare talent. But I do have a few notable reservations.
Doesn't he make a rather boneheaded research error regarding the events of September 11, 2001? The narrator/protagonist describes how he was watching the events of that fateful day unfold on a television set in a Geneva bar. He talks about how some of the seemingly callous bar patrons found the sight of the first airplane crashing into the World Trade Center tower to be amusing. He then describes the second airplane hitting the other tower. However, I happened to be home that morning and was watching CNBC, the cable stock market channel. They broke away from the regular programming to tell and show viewers that one of the towers at the World Trade Center was on fire. This was still the stock market commentators as the network hadn't brought in the big news anchors and reporters yet. It didn't seem like that big of a story at first. The commentators said that there had been reports that a small, presumably private aircraft had crashed into it and the story didn't seem all that serious. Then the second airplane hit the second tower and one of the commentators and myself realized the probable truth in a flash. "Is today the anniversary of something?" he asked in a stunned fashion. "This can't be an accident." My thoughts exactly. I don't believe there is any footage of the first plane hitting.
Secondly, the writer seems to invoke a literary point of view I don't ever recall reading before, and I've been a voracious reader since childhood. It seems to be first person omniscient. Has anyone seen this before? The narrator recounts precise details of events he was not a witness to, such as "The Saracen" doing his bloody number on the former Syrian secret police official in the parking lot of the medical research facility where the former had posed as a indigent Palestinian refugee and even the exact thoughts of both the perpetrator and the victim. Has anyone encountered this seemingly totally implausible literary device before?
I suppose a writer is free to introduce groundbreaking literary innovations, but I just find this, well, impossible and therefore it detracts from the overall quality of a very good thriller. It should have been written in the third person. The writer had to sacrifice something in order to make his account tenable in my opinion. In light of these apparent shortcomings, I cannot concur with those who rated this a five star effort.
I am Pilgrim - First Person Omniscient. What?!
___________
I agree that the book is riveting and the writer is one of rare talent. But I do have a few notable reservations.
Doesn't he make a rather boneheaded research error regarding the events of September 11, 2001? The narrator/protagonist describes how he was watching the events of that fateful day unfold on a television set in a Geneva bar. He talks about how some of the seemingly callous bar patrons found the sight of the first airplane crashing into the World Trade Center tower to be amusing. He then describes the second airplane hitting the other tower. However, I happened to be home that morning and was watching CNBC, the cable stock market channel. They broke away from the regular programming to tell and show viewers that one of the towers at the World Trade Center was on fire. This was still the stock market commentators as the network hadn't brought in the big news anchors and reporters yet. It didn't seem like that big of a story at first. The commentators said that there had been reports that a small, presumably private aircraft had crashed into it and the story didn't seem all that serious. Then the second airplane hit the second tower and one of the commentators and myself realized the probable truth in a flash. "Is today the anniversary of something?" he asked in a stunned fashion. "This can't be an accident." My thoughts exactly. I don't believe there is any footage of the first plane hitting.
Secondly, the writer seems to invoke a literary point of view I don't ever recall reading before, and I've been a voracious reader since childhood. It seems to be first person omniscient. Has anyone seen this before? The narrator recounts precise details of events he was not a witness to, such as "The Saracen" doing his bloody number on the former Syrian secret police official in the parking lot of the medical research facility where the former had posed as a indigent Palestinian refugee and even the exact thoughts of both the perpetrator and the victim. Has anyone encountered this seemingly totally implausible literary device before?
I suppose a writer is free to introduce groundbreaking literary innovations, but I just find this, well, impossible and therefore it detracts from the overall quality of a very good thriller. It should have been written in the third person. The writer had to sacrifice something in order to make his account tenable in my opinion. In light of these apparent shortcomings, I cannot concur with those who rated this a five star effort.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire