Dec '03-Jan '04:The Man Who Fell in Love with the Moon - Tom Spanbauer

i enjoyed pieces of the novel myself. i really got into spanbauer's descriptive style, and his dialogue that tried to stay as true to real spoken banter as possible.
overall, i didn't get much into the novel, the beginning was very good, but as the book progressed, i didn't see much of it tying together very well. what seemed to me to be the real point, the central theme of the book, was ignored for much of the book, and thrown together at the end. it also seemed to me that the book itself was mainly just written to write about things that were taboo back in those days, namely prostitution, homosexuality, half-breeds, and the native american suppression.

This is all just my singluar opinion of the book, not an attack on the author or his art (the book itself).

I want to try and stop the urge to make this discussion about the book as a whole before we get to far off track. Sometime later, much later, we can all give our summarizing ideas about the text, but before we get anywhere close to that point there is a so much to deal with. So please, feel free to dive headfirst into different literary lenses, theories, and interpretations, but I beg of you to slow down and take appropriately small pieces of the text so that they can be properly explored. Once we've done that, then we can imbricate them all and see what we can discern about the text as a whole.

gorgias, i'm not sure what you're getting at, but i like your use of the word "imbricate."

anyway, i read jeff's interview with spanbauer, and was surprised that tom robbins wasn't listed as an influence; they write on the same themes couched in very similar ideas: the homo/bisexual cowboy as outlaw; the nutcase as religious figure; prostitue as mother...etc.

so only 4 people read the book?

Hopefully it's just slow to start. I think a lot of people just don't know what to post. Like me. Other than "It was good"

I don't really know what to say about the book other than that, as far as starting a discussion.

But I also noticed that the journey of finding who he was and all that was kinda forgotten for a while. It started out being a huge thing, and then just lost it's meaning.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by moe.ron [/i]
[B]so only 4 people read the book? [/B][/QUOTE]
i guess so
unless that whole idea of discussing different literary lenses, theories and interpretations frightened as many people as it did me. if i'm going to discuss a book, i'm going to discuss a book, and not how different people and characters [i]might[/i] interpret it.
so pretty much, what i wanted to say was in my first post.

Ok, so that whole "literary lenses" thing was my fault. I didn't mean to make people feel nervous about the whole idea of discussion. I mean, there are no wrong answers here. I just wanted to make it so that we could slow down and take pieces of the text and analyze them fully before looking at the entire piece. For example, in what ways could we interpret the notion of Killdeer that establishes the story? Again, I don't want anyone to feel nervous or feel that they have to appeal to some tradition to post. I'm just really interested in the different ways that we have come to understand the story.

ok, i see where you're going with it now, i just felt like i was back in english lit class after missing a week...
killdeer seemed to be a parallel to the storyline, a way to subtly keep the idea of Shed looking for himself without active searching, alive and prevalent in the story. the notion of killdeer is probably to establish a hint that Shed has a sense of loss in his life, and it's something he wants to resolve, without knowing/understanding what he's doing, or why. he thinks he's just looking for the meaning of his name, and to see some buffalo, but it's really about self-discovery and introspection on the part of Shed.
i really hope that's what you're getting at at least...

In protest against a post of mine,
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by moe.ron [/i]
[B]so, what you're saying is that to be a writer worthy of your readership, you have to use lots of words you'd never utter in everyday conversation... [/B][/QUOTE]

and in affirmation of another.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by moe.ron [/i]
[B]gorgias, i'm not sure what you're getting at, but i like your use of the word "imbricate." [/B][/QUOTE]

Quite the discriminating motherfucker, aren't we?

i think you're in the wrong thread/forum buddy, that post just doesn't quite fit with this line of discussion.

I did enjoy the book a lot, although it did seema bit much when Shed is sleeping who he thinks is his father. I did like the relationships between the characters, though. And how a lot of the minor characters always have *just* enough information so they become flesh and blood, but never to the point where it distracts from everything else... Tom also adds a great sense of geography to things, where Shed's special spot is... the route to Buffalo Head, etc.

is it all right for me to bring up the idea of exploring how the text follows/abandons the Bildungsroman tradition, or am I going to get in trouble again?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by testicle festival [/i]
[B]In protest against a post of mine,

and in affirmation of another.

Quite the discriminating motherfucker, aren't we? [/B][/QUOTE]

testicle, please see my last post in the same thread you took that quote from...either put up or shut up, already.

and gorgias, feel free to start that discussion.

At the risk of oversimplifying, a bildungsroman has a fairly well charted path. The story follows a person's growth and change within the context of a definite social structure. This growth's genesis is the result of a traumatic event or feeling that makes the character search out new surroundings. This search takes a great deal of time, often involving repeated moments of combat with the accepted social structure. All of this resolves itself by the main character taking on the ethos of the society and a final look back by the main character on the journey and the lessons learned therein. Given that criteria for the tradition, how does the text manipulate the traditional signposts and to what message is said manipulation supposed to convey, if any?

And on a completely different note, why is it that this thread has been viewed over 100 times and we still only have 4 fucking people talking about this?

my guess is not a lot of people really got into that book.

and i'm also guessing you're a lit teacher or major because i'm at a loss for words due to your post. so i'm just going to give it the old college try, sorry if i butcher it.

the text "manipulates the traditional signposts" in that the story as a whole is pretty much set up exactly as you described it. the story follows shed's growth into adulthood and into his own person in the era just before the booming american rush westward, a time when most people still adheared to traditional christian, almost puritanical beliefs, or no religious beliefs. Shed's growth, his drive to find out about himself, his name and his ancestry, is a result of a combination several tramatic events such as his rape, and the death of his "mother". shed searches for quite some time for the meaning of his name, and for information on his ancestry, during which time he gets in trouble with differing types of people due to his sexual orientation, and his mixed heritage. shed finally comes to terms with who he is, and what he is after challenging common stereotypes of native americans and "half-breeds", and also challenging common stereotypes of homosexuals. the messages i think the book is trying to convey is that no one can know you when you have no idea who or what you are to begin with, that who and what you are shapes how other percieve you.

ok, so i know i butchered that, but hey, i'll consider this a good time to learn.

I am certainly all for you discussing bildungsroman here, although, not being familiar with the term, I'm not sure how much I can offer. By your definition, it certainly seems the book fits the criteria, but I'm not sure what else to say.

Is the concept that because the character, at the end of the book, takes on the ethos of society, that we should question (since the story is told from the vantage point in the future, looking back) that things were changed because the character is in a different place in the telling than they were in the doing?

I'll stop now before I fall too far down the wrong path. But, please, educate us on this term. Very interested.

One thing that kept coming up in my head is when he mentions Killdeer. The bird is protecting something. What is Shed protecting when he's playing killdeer. And when he's searching for something that appears to be playing killdeer, what is Shed being protected from, loss of innocence maybe?

Also, I noticed that education/knowledge was respected in the book. I think it was only the "outcasts" Shed, Ida and Dellwood, who knew how to spell pernicious. did anyone else see any connection or importance in the words they spelled out throughout the book? I wrote some down when I remembered too, and I'm not really seeing anything yet. Unless they just are there to show the importance of Shed's learning.

I've only just started the book (at pg. 70). I'm enjoying it a lot but am starting to get frustrated at the lack of story. Everything so far is just a small story that's happened in the past. The above posts allude to more so I guess I'll just have to wait. Also, I expect the storytelling is true to the context of the character.
It's also interesting to see how the character "Establishes his Authority" in this context. What do others think about that?

There are at least three topics that I feel compelled to comment on/respond to, so I'll take them all separately so as not to be any more confusing than my electronic scribble already is.
On the Bildungsroman tradition; the thing that intrigued me at the beginning of my question about the tradition as it relates to the book is that, while it would appear that the text follows the arc of the tradition rather faithfully, upon further critique, it would seem that the author is merely playing with the tropes as opposed to being tied down by them. For example, a Bildungsroman traditionally takes place in a definite social structure; the social structure of the text is the furthest thing from definite. The setting of the Old West, and more specifically the town of Excellent, is in constant flux throughout the text. So right away the signposts for a Bildungsroman are in jeopardy, and this jeopardy is increased when we look at the second aspect of the Bildungsroman. The second stage is when the character's journey grows out of a traumatic event that shakes him from comfort and sends him off to search for new things. Now, while the search may be present in the text, the initial trauma is not. That is not to say that the main character does not experience trauma, it is just that he did not start from a place of clearly defined parameters (I'll speak more on this topic when I get to PsychoKeety's question of the words that were spelled out). The other difficulty when comparing the text to the tradition of the Bildungsroman is that the main character does not take on the ethos of the surrounding society because both the society and the main character have gone through radical change by the time the text is done. All of these problems exist, and yet, the text can still be read as a Bildungsroman in the sense that, at the heart of it, a Bildungsroman is about growth and change, and while that may traditionally have been associated with assimilation and uniformity, that use of that tradition to espouse a message of individuality and independence is a great literary message for all its readers.
Concerning PsychoKeety's question of the words that are spelled out; while my interest is piqued by your idea of knowledge being respected in the book, I want to run with your idea of education a bit (and if I run poorly, please berate me later). I am taking "education" to mean grounding, an attempt to place definite definitions and meanings on things. Again, at the risk of getting in trouble, I would say that the spelling out of words is an attempt, by the characters, to make a definitive connection between the signifier and the signified; to show that X equals Y. This move towards explicit definitions of things according to their names is especially interesting when it is applied to the main character. The message that is being conveyed by the characters to the main character is that the title, the name that is given to a thing is what encompasses the definition of said thing. In the main character's case, he is the recipient of many names, none of which adequately define who he is. So throughout the text we are witness to a tension, a debate if you will, about the power and function of naming. This is established early on when we are told of the mountain that is known as either "Indian Head" or what translates into "not-really-a-mountain". The translation of the Indian identifier into "not-really-a-mountain" is especially interesting because the definition speaks to the difficulty and complexity of "definition". The other name for the mountain, one that we are never privileged to hear, speaks to the idea that it is not a mountain. Subtly, the direct relationship of the signifier-signified relationship is called into question. That questioning continues as we read about the Tybo, white man, Indian, Bannock, and Shoshone languages all of which have different titles and descriptions for various items and to take the case of the Berdache for an example, those different definitions are often in conflict with one another. So, in one way to read the text, the "education" of the main character of the definitions of the words throughout the text is to assimilate him into the one language and take him away from the others. Another way to read the text is that the education of the words and their definitions is to heighten the importance of the main character's own search for identification. He is being taught the importance of name as meaning, and for the majority of the text he is denied that privilege; names are thrust upon him and he must examine the various definitions that they offer him and decide the one that will best suite him. There's a great deal more to say about this but perhaps I should take a step back and deal with any questions that arise from this line of reasoning.
Also, thanks for reading and, more importantly, sharing your own interpretations and ideas about this text. I hope to respond to more of your ideas in the near future.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Gorgias [/i]
[B] Another way to read the text is that the education of the words and their definitions is to heighten the importance of the main character's own search for identification. He is being taught the importance of name as meaning[/B][/QUOTE]

I never thought to connect the search for identity and the education.

But it makes sense.

To elaborate a little more on my first simple, and probably obvious, idea. I think it helps to separate the good and bad characters of the book, in a sort of ironic way. The people who are stereotypically illiterate and inferior are the ones who could spell "pernicious" (which I mentioned in my last post). The white men, who thought of themselves as so much better than Ida, Shed, etc, didn't have a quality highly valued of the author. (which is a little presumptuous, but I think it's safe to say Spanbauer values literacy).

I had a fever and the only prescription was more cowbell.
Now that I'm feeling better, I promise no more "manipulating the signposts" or tired old literary theories. From here on out, let's talk about how the book was cool or the mad-cap sex scenes, no... that's to muted...about all the fucking in the book. Matter of fact, let's get some profanity rolling in this board. That fucking book was one hell of a story. I nearly shit myself at the end. Damned if I know what that fucking story is about!!!
Now I feel much more at ease.

yea, the story did seem to be just that, a story. most books tend to rely on plots, but reflecting back on it, it was like sitting down and just listening to your grandfather tell a story about when he was young (although i wouldn't want to hear anything like that from my grandfther heh). i still probably wouldn't bother with reading it again, but i can respect it for just being a story, and a fairly well written one.

i thoroughly enjoyed the book and have since leant it out to two friends (i'm another australian who had to order it from amazon, it's really annoying that we don't tend to have a lot of the books mentioned here in our bookshops :mad: ).

i just thought it was a really original, fluid piece of writing. i didn't find it slow at all, i mean it definately wasn't fast-paced, but more a thoughtful, strolling read. i didn't read as much into it as maybe i shoud have by reading everyone else's reviews, but i took it as just a cool story about this guy's "coming of age" (to coin a phrase) and really understanding the importance of his heritage and really soaking in and going away and thinking hard about what all the people he came across were meant to be about, their places in the world in conjuncture with his own, and what choices to make with what life had offered him.

i do however, understand the point a couple of people made about a lot of the meaning of the story being shoved in at the end, i felt there was quite an avalanche of information there too, which could maybe have been distributed a bit more randomly heading towards that point, but you know, i still loved it!

Not to Nic—

Nicole, how you been? I haven’t even seen you around since Swimblush back in like March or something. You just lose interest in us? You should come play more often. For serious.

Kabol

aw wow, that's so nice to be remembered! i love this site, haven't lost interest, just been sooo busy. really keen to get backinto it AND writing for that matter. so what's been going on in my absence, any juicy gossip for me? have you writen much lately?

What a crazy ending. Good use of other textures to tell the story. From the get-go, I can see little hidden guns. The first line of the book relates real nice to the end where Shed is about to tell his story to the crowd. Great use of choruses in this book. Is his other stuff any good?