"Faces in the Crowd” - Valeria Luiselli
Hi everyone, this week I read “Faces in the Crowd” by Valeria Luiselli for my final book of the course. This book might be my least favourite this semester. That’s not to say I hated it, but I missed a lot of what the story was trying to convey between keeping up with the different points of view and characters that were around each narrator.
“Faces in the Crowd” is structured in a way that has the main female narrator who switches back and forth from her current life as a wife and mother, to her younger self in New York City, then to a writer in the past. The concept is interesting but I think this book could have used different chapters titled by the narrator to separate the stories. I was often confused at whose story I was reading, especially with Owen and the current narrator because they both have two children that they talk about often. But I suppose this could have been intentional to show the similarities between the narrator and Owen; they are parents who are both involved in literature and reminisce about their younger days in New York City.
I think the largest similarity between the two is that both are unhappy with their current life. The narrator’s past life was chaotic yet looked exciting, constantly meeting various acquaintances she would sleep over with. On the contrary, she now works as a translator and comes home to her husband and two young children with little outside interaction. Her life now is mundane and she says it herself- in her book Philadelphia, her husband goes to Philadelphia “so something happens” (83). Writing is clearly an escape for the narrator. The constant switching of different narratives is like a look into the narrator’s mind where she is looking for a distraction.
The most puzzling part for me was the ending. I was keeping up until then that the points of view were switching between the narrator in the aftermath of an earthquake and Owen. Yet in the final paragraph it appears that Owen, who was covering his eyes, opens them to find the narrator’s children as though Owen was the narrator’s husband who was missing after the earthquake. This left me wondering if Owen was symbolizing the husband, when I initially thought Owen was most similar to the narrator. I guess the narrator’s husband also seemed unhappy with life?
My question for the class is: What do you think was the significance of the earthquake at the end of the book?
Arissa, I think your thought of how it might’ve been different if this book had been written in chapters is interesting! It really got me thinking. I think Ximena shared a quote of the book when the narrator says that “if you give them a pen, they write you a horribly boring novel in which each line is there for an ultimate reason: everything links up, there are no loose ends,” I wonder if the chapters would take away from that. I think you summarized very well these parallel narrators and their personal as well as life similarities.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
- Tesi
Hi Arissa! I also didn't hate this book but I missed the deeper meaning because I was trying to follow what part we were at and who was narrating. I think the earthquake at the end was a way to connect both the woman and Owens life together, because in the last page it is almost as if they are at the same place at the same time.
ReplyDeleteHi Arissa, I like your connection about how both the narrator and Owen are dissatisfied with their current lives. I have never thought about this; only the dysfunctional marriages that the two characters share. In my interpretation, the ending is when the two storylines finally emerge; at the same time, Luiselli also ends the novel in a linear way because both Owen and the narrator's son now exist in the same space. Like what you mentioned, it is as if Owen has become the narrator's husband.
ReplyDelete- Janae
Hi Arissa. Thanks for you sharing. I don't hate this book as well, but as you said, I often can't tell whose story I am reading. I think I might have to read it twice to understand it.
ReplyDeleteHi Arissa,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog this week! I like that you pointed out that writing was an escape for the narrator. To answer your question I sort of view the earthquake as another way to make the 2 separate stories of the narrator and Owen to collide. I also view it as a way for the story to include elements of reality, which is becomes harder to grasp as the book goes on.
Hi Arissa, you mentioned that Owen and the narrator's stories keep switching because of possible parallels between the two. That's a really new perspective. It's true that there are times when the perspective is switched to fully express the story and ideas, and times when it's to make comparisons.
ReplyDeletethe ending with the earthquake got me thinking. Throughout the book, we see the main character juggling her past and present, finding life kind of dull now compared to her exciting past in New York. I believe that the earthquake at the end might symbolize a big shake-up or change happening. It's like the story's saying even when life seems stuck or boring, something big and unexpected can happen that changes everything. The mix-up with Owen and the narrator's husband in the final scene adds to the confusion but maybe suggests that the people in our lives or our roles can get all tangled up when everything's thrown into chaos.
ReplyDelete