After reading the first couple pages of Lost in Translation, I was upset. After dealing with Meatless Days for my presentation the day before, I thought I was in the midst of another story that had too much forced meaning and too little relevant plot to make me care about whatever the author felt like sharing. Meatless Days can do that to people. When my group led the class discussion on the frustratingly pointless excerpt, most people had the same reaction: what is she talking about? In the end, I was in awe at how a story that centered on food could turn me off so incredibly much.
So I guess it’s not surprising that when I started reading Lost in Translation, the discussion of the word “river” that dominated the first page would worry me. But as I forced myself onward, I realized that this story had something that Meatless Days had lacked: plot. It’s a wonder what context and a storyline can do to one’s…story. Remarkably, there are many similarities between the two stories, yet they had vastly different effects on me as a reader. For starters, both autobiographers are going through cultural identity crises--Suleri (Meatless Days) alternating between life in the U.K. and Pakistan, and Hoffman (Lost in Translation) as a Polish immigrant to Canada. Both women also chose to use the topic listed in their title as the medium with which they could tell of their troubles—Suleri with food, Hoffman with words. But this is where the two authors take off in separate directions. For the sake of brainstorming for my paper, I’m going to focus on Lost in Translation.
As I continued to read her story, I realized that Hoffman has a candid ability to evoke a specific emotion in the reader. This is most obvious when she conveys the sense of awkwardness she feels in numerous social situations. Most people, aside from maybe the top tier of comedians, have all felt the embarrassment of telling a joke that is followed by silence instead of the anticipated laughter—Hoffman’s description of the fast-food scene is one that people in general, not just immigrants, can all relate to. After a slightly rough—though far from pointless—beginning, Hoffman was able to hold my attention for the duration of the passage. By the end of the story, I was reminded that you can’t judge a book by its cover, nor by a different story you read the week before.
My friend’s flying in to the airport soon, so I think I'll leave the more in-depth discussion of the excerpt for my paper.
And, as usual, the title for today’s post comes from another great movie. Major props if you know this one (hint: it's from 1990).
1 comment:
Pump Up the Volume?
Good post. You might start thinking about how you can transform your feelings about the text into an argument. Though it's fine in the journal to discuss what you liked and didn't like about the texts, in the paper you'll want to discuss the texts themselves. Maybe you can concentrate on structure and how well (or not so well) the themes come through as a result... or you could explore the issue of cultural identity in two of the texts. You might think about how each author relates their own experiences with their culture similarly (or differently). Just some thoughts. Feel free to email me a thesis, too, if you want. I'm happy to read it and give you some feedback.
Post a Comment