: -Vollman's, Bevin's and the Reverend's -
: aren't distinct enough to recognize them
: without checking who's speaking, but on the
: whole I tended to like the three of them.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I only read it one time, and it was a couple weeks ago now, but I think at least the reverend's voice is distinct. As I recall, he uses bigger words and, of course, he speaks in more religious terms. Perhaps it's a rather easy distinction. I also think Vollman is the one who insists on the euphemisms like 'sick box'.
: I don't think LitB can be accomodated in any
: easy "genre": it is certainly not
: historical novel (although, as we have
: discussed, contains elements of it), not
: magical realism, not pure fantasy.
I suppose there are lots of novels that don't fit easily into a more specific genre, and I also think this is not the first novel to use quotations from 'actual' sources. Sometimes quotations are referenced and sometimes not. I am trying to think of an example; I am sure I must have read one that references at least one quotation, but I haven't thought of it yet.
The distinction between ghosts and spirits is interesting, but perhaps souls would be a better word than spirit. Spirit has a bit of a seance ring to it, and I take it people are supposed to have some awareness of the spirits at a seance.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index