In the story, the narrator does not use a lot of clear language. There is an uneducated air around the sound of the writing, though it is possible that he could be writing as much as possible in the 20 minutes he sets aside for writing a day.
“Damn it. Plan will not work. Cannot get check to Discover on time. Needs time to clear.”
He is, however, good at documenting what he is experiencing in his life. He frequently talks about his children and his job and maintains a curiosity about the ‘SG’. It is also interesting to read when the narrator does not use quotation marks. This makes George Sanders’ writing much more engaging.
Not Rich, Pam said. Richer, I said. Richer, Pam said. Damn.
Overall, I think the lack of quotation marks could make the reader a little confused at times. It makes the reader have to slow down in order to accurately interpret what the characters are trying to say. I frequently found myself rereading lines in order to understand what was happening in the story. The language in the story left little to be imagined, however. Even though the writing was not ‘proper’ in a sense, it was still descriptive enough to get the point across. The people in the story were seen through this narrator’s eyes, who is an interesting person to begin with. The language and characters really create a fascinating story regarding this man’s life. When I started reading this, I was bored for the first paragraph or so and I was even aggravated at the style of it. Once I got into it, however, the story really came to life for me.
The writing style also bothered me. In the first few pages I thought the family was living in actual poverty, as opposed to beyond their means, and the narrator’s writing style definitely contributed to that. How do you feel the writing style contributes to the narrative?
When I first read the story, I connected the writing style to the “broken” English of immigrants. Even if he was rushed, his writing wouldn’t have been that short and blunt. I believe that was how he wrote and spoke. I assumed he was an immigrant, or perhaps his parents were, and he either grew up that way or adopted his parent’s way of speaking. Either way, it gave a different aspect to the story which I found interesting.
I didn’t really think much of the way he was writing. Since I knew the story was told as diary entries, I assumed he was simply writing in his version of shorthand. It’s interesting to see all the different ways people interpreted the writing style, though.
I didn’t really think much about the writing style since Saunders usually writes his stories in weird ways that could be confusing to readers unfamiliar with his work; in this case, though, I think the shorthand-esque style fits since there are people who tend to write journal entries in such a way.
I heard something once from one of my friends who says she hates reading book in first person. She explained it by saying, “We never REALLY get to know the characters for who they are, we only ever know them through the narrator’s eyes.” and that really resonated with me. Every time I read a story in first person, I remember that this is only what the narrator thinks, would this be what I think as well? In third person, it’s easier for the reader to decide for themselves whether or not the character deserves their affection. But in first person, when the narrator is talking directly to you and is telling you everything you need to know, you feel forced into thinking there’s no other way to look at it.