Archive by Author | ashleypuffer

binary translator

I don’t know much about computers, programming, or coding, but I had a little bit of fun with this binary to text translator: http://www.roubaixinteractive.com/PlayGround/Binary_Conversion/Binary_To_Text.asp

In particular, I used it with the picture of the orb that’s completely made out of binary code on page 640. I know the broader idea that the orb is composed of binary is much more important than analyzing what the specific binary says, but I thought it would be interesting to plug in some of the streams of alternating zeros and ones to see if there’s any meaning to them. It looks like most of the lines are simply a long string of ‘U’s follow by a ‘P,’ so ultimately it’s the word ‘up’ repeating many times. I’m not sure if there’s any significance to that, though–I just found it interesting…

Advertisements

The Familiar “kindle edition”?

When I was looking online to see the cover image that is being advertised with the book now, I discovered that the book is going to be available for purchase in Kindle edition here: http://www.amazon.com/Familiar-One-Rainy-Day-May-ebook/dp/B00N6PBGFO/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

This naturally had me wondering what effect the digitalization of the book will have. I think that having the book be an ebook would beparticularly interesting with respect to the narcons since they (like e-readers) are a fusion of technology and storytelling. I wonder, though, if the unique visual aspects of the book (like the symbols in the spine of the book or the dog eared pages) will be lost in a kindle version of the book…

Narcons as gods?

I know there’s already been a lot of discussion of Narcons on here, but I’m going to add on to that in relation to some of the later events of the book, particularly in the last few sections of the book, so if you haven’t read that far yet, fair warning…
The chapter about narcons completely caught me by surprise–I had been so engrossed in the Xanther/Astair/Anwar narrative and the insertion of this sterile,cold, theoretical concept was chilling to me. It invoked in me an existential sense of awe at the mechanics of the world (or rather Danielewski’s world), almost like seeing the proverbial man behind the curtain. The fact that Astair’s thesis is wrapped up in the idea of God and proving the necessity of God, as well as Anwar’s role as a game-maker, both seemed to connect particularly well to the concept of narcons that is presented in this chapter. The narcons seem to be associated with a god-like omniscience; they “know” everything the characters know. At the same time, though, narcons have very specific limits, one of which is that narcons can’t communicate with other narcons or even any non-narcons (which obviously is confusing in that the narcon seems to be communicating with us, the non-narcon readers). These limits suggest that the narcon is not all-knowing or omnipotent. So if the narcons are not traditional gods, what are they then, simply other characters?

However, the narcons do seem to have some sense of ownership or greater responsibility than the other characters–they are constantly interrupting sections to include cryptic little phrases that begin with braille symbols. One such phrase, that appears on page 712 struck me as particularly god-like: The sentence begins: “Anwar sounding sterner than ever before (as if those words were never his own,” but is interrupted with the braille symbols signalling that the next words (“only at the end of forever owned”) are those of the narcon. This phrase seems to imply that the narcon lives on past forever in a way that Anwar or any other character can’t.

What the debate about the narcons as either characters or gods or something else entirely seem to hinge upon is how we interpret meaning in the text. Are we to understand that everything is connected in a teological way, or is the opposite true: are the various stories that seem to be connected in some unique ways only superficially related? In other words, is The Familiar a nihilistic novel or is it teleological?

Thoughts?

beginnings and endings of chapters

Something that I found to be interesting in the novel are the beginnings and endings of chapters. As The Familiar is a novel that combines so many highly individualized stories and characters, the beginnings and endings of chapters (as the place where the disparate stories “meet,” or come into direct contact) are particularly emphasized. The fact that Danielewski does not often provide much context at the beginnings of the chapters, instead starting in media res reinforces the notion that the stories bleed into one another because they are stacked right next to one another without any fluff in between. In this sense the beginnings and ending of each chapter are like cinctures.

Many chapters thus far (up until page 398 at least) begin with a line of dialogue, and most begin with a saying or quote attributed to someone well-known. What significance do these “voices” that are featured at the beginning of chapters (whether in dialogue or simply in the invoked “voices” of those to whom the quotes are attributed) have? How does the primarily auditory nature of these “voices” influence the narrative style as a whole?