I didn't have high expectations for In Persuasion Nation but George Saunders really impressed me with "Jon." It's a bummer that we won't get to most of the stories. I feel like I'd really enjoy his other writing as well.
The dystopian setting in "Jon" was a nice surprise since all the short stories we've read so far have been realistic fiction. I like how Saunders chose to put us right in the middle of things rather than use exposition to explain the world. My interpretation of it is essentially the corporate apocalypse. Society as we know it has become overrun with marketing to the point where children are brainwashed into mindless ad slaves. It's realistic enough in that it's not inconceivable yet it's ridiculous enough to be intriguing. Despite this unnerving picture, Saunders manages to keep the story light with narrative voice.
The dystopian setting in "Jon" was a nice surprise since all the short stories we've read so far have been realistic fiction. I like how Saunders chose to put us right in the middle of things rather than use exposition to explain the world. My interpretation of it is essentially the corporate apocalypse. Society as we know it has become overrun with marketing to the point where children are brainwashed into mindless ad slaves. It's realistic enough in that it's not inconceivable yet it's ridiculous enough to be intriguing. Despite this unnerving picture, Saunders manages to keep the story light with narrative voice.
The story is told from Randy/Jon's perspective. When I first read the story, I didn't notice the nuances of Jon's narration. We discussed in-length the countless grammatical errors he makes throughout the story. It seemed like most of the class found them humorous and amusing. Saunders (as Jon) brilliantly teeters along the line between incomprehensible and understandable and what it does is draw us more to Jon. Looking closer, I see the irony of his stagnant grasp of English despite having a job that involves a lot of writing. It's even more hilarious that he's looking back on his younger self yet he still continues to make mistakes. Or maybe, his eloquence was lost with the removal of the ever-invasive gargadisk? We did talk about a theory that he's conjured up the best recollection he can.
I found Jon to be an extremely sympathetic character. He was sold by his mom for (drug) money, lived for years with the illusion of an artificial, idealized surrogate, and is constantly interrupted with ads streaming out of his subconscious. Of course, the other children experience similar lives so I feel bad for them as well. I almost want to say he's the most sympathetic character we've encountered this semester but then there's the argument that he's blissfully ignorant. He's happy (for the most part) and is completely unaware of how controlled he is.
What are your thoughts on "Jon"? How are you liking Saunders so far?
What are your thoughts on "Jon"? How are you liking Saunders so far?
I'm loving Saunders as well. I was even more surprised by "Adams" a story I found to be arguably the most entertaining of anything we've read this semester. The narrative style is completely unconventional--literally, he ignores writing conventions all over the place--but is incredibly intriguing at the same time. He starts the story off by dropping the reader into a hilariously bizarre scene, one perhaps reminiscent of Birdman's opening. The story as a whole is a very interesting, comical take on the competitive neighbor dynamic. The silly way in which he portrays the characters and their interactions is almost cartoonish, with "wonking" being the primary term used to describe some minor act of physical aggression. Yet, the dynamic between the two, along with the surrounding neighbors, is very weirdly well written and executed. I'm certainly interested to see what else "In Persuasion Nation" has in store for us.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really sure what to expect from Saunders, and when I first started reading this story I was mostly just confused. Like you mentioned, we have been reading realistic fiction and this story was a big change. When I read this story on my own I didn't appreciate all the many quirks, but when we discussed it in class I began to appreciate what Saunders what doing. When I read this story I didn't even notice all the odd grammatical issues that make this story so quirky. Saunders does a really good job of making this story readable ( and enjoyable), but still having a narrator that comes across as rather stupid (or brainwashed). I also agree that this story evokes a certain amount of sympathy for jon. I feel sorry for the fact that jon lives a very limited life with access only to advertising. On the other hand jon seems relatively happy, and I don't see him as hating his life in any sense. In that respect, I think jon is blissfully unaware of many of life's difficulties. For example, when he has to deal with the death of baby Amber he just takes a drug that makes him pretty much forget. Overall thought, I agree jon does get some sort of sympathy from me.
ReplyDeleteWhen I call a narrator like Jon "dumb" in class, this doesn't at all preclude sympathy--as you suggest, it might even intensify our sympathy, as it's clearly not his fault that his education (if we can call it that) has equipped him to talk this way. There is a kind of innocence and ignorance throughout his voice, but there's also a real emotional simplicity and directness--he just wants to fall in love and have a family and a life, and he's trying to figure out how to manage that while not upsetting the Coordinators he's come to trust and respect.
ReplyDeleteThis is classic Saunders territory: a "dumb" or otherwise limited narrative voice that nonetheless has an ethical purity, a lack of corruption, a sincerity of purpose. Even a deeply problematic narrator like Roberts in "Adams" is, at core, just a guy trying to do right for his kids. It would be easy to hear condescension in Saunders' narrative voices, but I don't--I sense something more like love for these crazy and often limited-intelligence narrators.
Your point about Jon being one of the most, if not the most, sympathetic character we've encountered leads me to pose an interesting question: when is sympathetic isolated from "relatable," a word that seems to far more commonly used in English classes than sympathetic, it seems? (You might remember Ms. Majerus' blog post on the topic.) Jon is hardly relatable; he has had a completely alien upbringing, perceives emotions and communicates differently-- he might as well be an alien. Yet, I agree he is more sympathetic than many of other characters we've read. Part of it might be the nuances of his narration, which seems to give him a more honest feeling.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed "Jon" a lot, as well as the other stories we read in this collection. I like how you pointed out that although this story can seem very light-hearted and even humorous at times, the setting itself is quite bleak and unnerving. This is similar to what Saunders did in "Adams" and "Brad Carrigan, American". Saunders consistently uses a humorous narrative voice throughout this collection so far, which often deceived me from seeing the fact that many of these situations are actually dark and depressing.
ReplyDeleteSaunders' vastly different narrative style and setting for his stories was very refreshing for me, after reading many books set in the present or recent past of our world. Jon was, I agree, a character that drew the reader in and took them on a rollercoaster ride unlike any story thus far had done for me. Then, there was Adams, a lighthearted but brutal story that drew me in with the cartoony humor and held me with the shock of what was being narrated. The only word I can use to describe "Brad Carrigan, American" is insane. I have a theory that all the characters we meet in this book are actually simulated by a supercomputer of some sort as well as their bizarre, mutating surroudings and that is how they produce TV entertainment at that point in the future.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I thought "Jon" was very, very strange, as I assume most people did, with the quirky narrative style. As I got past the poor grammar, I actually came to enjoy the story. Normally I'm more drawn to stories with relatable characters but, as Nicholas mentioned, Jon is hardly relatable so I'm not sure why I like him. Saunders provides a striking change in narrative style and, so far, I'm enjoying it.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think about how happy Jon is in his situation. He knows about being able to be released from his job and social standing, and it is even allowed with the right amount of paperwork, but he chooses to not go outside because he doesn't really know what will happen. I think the argument about his ignorance about the outside is extremely prevalent especially when you think about his resistance to going outside. He doesn't know what he might suffer out there, but inside he is safe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that "Jon" really was a very fun story to read, and that at first I didn't really see the misspellings and grammatical errors too (this is the type of stuff the ACT will try to screw you over on, but that story's for another time). What really impressed me was the voice of the narrative -- it just kind of latched onto me (or rather I latched onto it) and just went with the flow. Normally I'm quite the slow reader, but with Saunder's style of writing I've been flipping pages faster than ever.
ReplyDelete