The Bone People by Keri Hulme has no constant point of view. It changes quite frequently, swapping tenses and narratives every other page, on average. In just the passage I chose for my explication essay, for example, the tense changes over half a dozen times, as does the narrative. While this makes for a complicated book to read and understand at any given time, the story could not be told any other way.
While The Bone People takes place in the present (or what was the present in 1983), it is rooted in the past. Joe does what he does because of the way he was raised in the past, trying his best to raise a child that the past thrust upon him while taking away everyone else in his life. Kerewin’s family was abandoned to the past, a past that she refuses to acknowledge even when she is alone. As for Simon, all that is known about him was left at the bottom of the ocean, waiting for the past to destroy it. Then, there are the references to New Zealand mythology that truly move the story forward, for without them, all three would likely be separated forever, with Kerewin dead and Joe and Simon trapped in suffering. Therefore, the story is not confined to the present. If it was told entirely in present tense, it would lose its connection to ancient trauma and fables that all three characters faced and heard about. By contrast, if it was told entirely in past tense, it would lose its immediacy.
The narrative is a bit trickier to understand. For the most part, the book is told by a third person narrator, who shows how each character is feeling, usually focusing on one character per section. Sometimes, though, it changes to first person, and we are offered glimpses into the tortured mind of Kerewin, the weary mind of Joe, or the incomprehensible mind of Simon. This can be confusing, but similar to the story being too big to be contained in one tense, it is much too big to be told by one person. If the story were told solely by Joe, Simon, or Kerewin, the thoughts, actions, and emotions of the other two characters would be lost. Even so, a third person narrator still would not do: we would know why everyone did what they did, but we would not know exactly what went through their minds when they did it. This concept can best be summed up by a quote from the book’s prologue: “They were nothing more than people, by themselves...Together, all together, they are the instruments of change (4).”
This book was dense, complex, and astounding. If anything about it was different--if the author had succumbed to conventional desires and chosen one tense, one narrator, etc.--it would lose its density and its complexity. Most importantly, it would lose its compelling nature. If this story was told like an ordinary story, it would become just that, and the extraordinary story told in The Bone People would not have been told.
I completely agree with all of your points, but it took me a second to understand exactly what you were trying to say. Even though the blog is sort of informal, I think it would help you to have clear topic sentences that introduce what you'll be talking about in each paragraph and relate this information to your main idea. In the second paragraph, I didn't understand why you were talking about time until the last few sentences. Aside from that, I hadn't thought of the use of both third and first person connecting to the story in the way that you discuss above. I agree entirely with you: the story deals with the past of each of the characters and the way that they deal with their memories and experiences, so saying that all of that connecting to the way that the story is told is an interesting insight. You made me think of the POV in a very different way!
ReplyDeleteI think your mention of the amount of times the point of view can change in just one passage of this book is very beneficial to your overall post. Your word choice was strong and the quote you used definitely aids in connecting your points together. I agree with Olivia that you could have stronger topic sentences that connect to your paragraphs in a more beneficial manner, however, you meld your points at the end very well to make a clear conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about the past being so vital to the present is extremely valid. The reasons for the events and circumstances of the story lie in what happened before. The characters would most likely not have met if it was not for what transpired before, like Kerewin's family and Simon's ocean misfortune as you said. You fleshed out your ideas well. I agree with Olivia and Gianna- your paragraphs could benefit from clear topic sentences to push your points further.
ReplyDelete