While reading Mao II, I felt that I kept waiting for something to happen–for the pieces to come together, for something to “click” more than it was. I was initially drawn into the work, but then I began to feel that the novel was a never-ending exposition. Additionally, it took me a while to get used to DeLillo’s style. (This was my first exposure to DeLillo.) The writing felt very stiff and the dialogue and interactions felt unnatural, maybe even unbelievable. (For instance, the scene of Brita’s photo shoot with Bill seemed awkward and artificial in an unnatural way, if that makes sense.) I liked how DeLillo changed the “focalizer”, but I sometimes found it difficult to keep up with the dialogue changes and would have to frequently go back and re-read sections of dialogue. I am pondering the greater significance of this confusion. Was DeLillo intending for the dialogue to sound like one voice, adding to his commentary on individual identity vs. combined experience/identity?
Now, before it sounds like I’m bashing DeLillo’s work, I have to say there were things that I liked about the novel. Again, I liked the shifting point of view, and I did enjoy the bits of humor interspersed throughout the text. Additionally, I liked DeLillo’s use of the prologue and epilogue to shape the narrative. (I am interesting in discussing the greater significance of the epilogue, though.) While I didn’t feel as fulfilled at the end of the novel as I had expected I would be when I started reading, there are definitely things I like about the novel, and I definitely have questions!
Alyssa brought up some great points about the crowd/individual pattern seen throughout the book. This was a pattern that I, too, took note of starting with the prologue. As Alyssa pointed out, Bill fights for the individual. On the other hand, Karen wants to blend in. Obviously, she took part in the crowd at the mass-marriage. She also seems to be drawn to crowds in the news and photographs. And she seems to enjoy the city. At one point when Karen is in the park she “realized they saw her” and this realization was a “shock” (151). I’m not sure that we could say that Bill and Karen are complete opposites in this respect, and I’m not exactly sure where Scott and Brita fit on this spectrum of individual vs. crowds, but it is clear that DeLillo is making a statement about the individual identity and experience being consumed by the idea of the common experience and identity.
In addition to the identity motif, I was also intrigued by the references to writers and writing. Todd made some interesting observations about these references in his post. Throughout the novel, writers seem to be held high in society-everyone is wondering what has happened to Bill and rumors have been circulating; Bill is asked to read Jean-Claude’s poems because he will carry some weight as a writer; the veterinarians in the restaurant seem impressed that Bill is a writer. However, the text also speaks to the weakening influence that writers have in the world. I also found it interesting that while the text speaks to writers losing their influence in society, writing is what Bill blames for his decline, saying that “it was writing that caused his life to disappear” (215). Writing may not have the influence on the greater population, but it definitely impacts the individual.
I also picked up on the idea of images vs. reality and how they can become one in the same with technology. Brita speaks of the “authority” of images and how they can become reality when she tells Bill that “the moment [his] picture appears [he’ll] be expected to look just like it. And if [he] meet people somewhere, they will absolutely question [his] right to look different from [his] picture” (43). This passage stood out to me and stuck with me throughout the novel.
Overall, I noticed many things in the novel which we had discussed in class (images,/reality, media coverage, etc). I look forward to class discussion in hopes of a greater understanding of DeLillo’s work!
DeLillo’s style is certainly stylized, self-consciously so — which shouldn’t be a surprise considering the value Bill Gray himself places on the “heft” of a sentence (remember: a writer is like a donut maker, only slower). Bill Gray as celebrity is an interesting case. The argument could be made (and is perhaps being made by the novel) that Gray is held is such high esteem precisely because his value as a novelist has been negated. As a writer’s words are withdrawn from the public sphere, what is left is his or her image, an empty shell to be sure, but with enough signification to satisfy the depthlessness of the media.