The threads of family history and interweaving destinies were, for me, the most problematic aspects of Holes. I found myself more interested in the vignettes of family history and lore than in the struggles of the protagonists in the camp, partly because my own preoccupation with family history helped me relate to this one element of the novel. My family traces its major dysfunctions matrilineally to the night my great-great-great-uncle set fire to the plantation of my great-great-grandparents, and left my great-grandmother a penniless orphan. The rest is too long and complicated a story, but there have definitely been many moments of family life in which I could almost smell the smoke of that ancient fire still burning through the surviving descendents. Sufficed to say, I get it when Stanley curses his "no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather!"
However, the fact that Stanley and Zero would not have been able to break the curse without the string of bad luck that led them to Camp Green Lake (and each other) seems curiously circular and self-defeating. Relatedly, the cruelty of the adults who run the camp, and the captivity of the other children seems almost arbitrary in light of this long string of destiny that binds Stanley and Zero (and the warden) to this place. By wrapping up the story so tidily, Sachar makes the day-to-day experiences of the boys in camp, and the themes of racism, bullying, and even revenge all but irrelevant.
I agree with the majority of the class in that I found this book easy, quirky, and fun to read, but I'm perplexed as to why so many of us find the story so satisfying despite the many thematic elements Sachar does not successfully resolve.
Purpose for Imaginative Literature
14 years ago
I would say that the story was satisfying to me, despite the unresolved thematic elements, because I wasn't reading to resolve them. Does that make sense? For me, (and I think a lot of other people in the class)I read Holes multiple times when I was younger and didn't know/recognize the different elements. I read it just for fun - kind of what Dr. McMillan was saying about reading it with his 6th grade class. Because I read it so many times that way when I was younger, I think I trained myself to only read Holes for fun and hence why I found it satisfying again!
ReplyDelete:)
I feel that the novel met our need to know instinct. We are curious beings that feel the need to know other peoples' stories and business. Sachar successfully included dramatic themes to make this story contain more of a deeper meaning. Overall I felt satisfied as a reader because the themes he discusses in holes are not themes that are resolved in reality.
ReplyDeleteI love the story that you gave about your family history and the parallels and relationship that it allowed you to have with the text! However, the most important point that your blog made for me was the very last little section. This is something that we talked about briefly at the end of class and it is something that I am so fascinated by. I believe there has to be human nature component involved in the idea of readers relating to stories characters regardless of the drastically different circumstances. Sachar, like so many other authors, does create a scenario that readers can relate to but when taken with the deeper context meaning, the ability for the reader to visualize themselves in the story's context should be altered. Because this is not always the case, the questions and challenges everyone, as readers, encounters are never ending. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really good point about the circular nature of this novel. At first I liked the circular nature, but I do see how it is problematic and sets aside some of the important themes. I was also concerned with the motives of the warden and the other adults. I just didn't understand why they would be so cruel to the children. That kind of evil needs some kind of motive, and I don't think the warden's desire for treasure is enough to cover all the other adults.
ReplyDeleteYou should write a book about your family :)
I see the point you are making, however I loved this book. I thought having the book wrap up so neatly added to what made Holes amazing. Once you get passed the idea that it is not possible, it is amazing. Fun read, maybe we should all dig wholes for extra credit
ReplyDeleteAimee, for me , I think that I responded so well to this book because I originally read it when I was younger. It was very interesting to see how those who had not read it when they were younger reacted to it. I think that age has everything to do with your initial reaction to this story.
ReplyDeleteI never read Holes as a kid, nor did I see the movie. However, I did like the way everything sort of came together at the end. Although I agree with you that by wrapping it up so neatly at the end makes the rest of the elements such as bullying and racism sort of useless, I still liked the aspect that everything did resolve itself in the end. And I must admit when Sachar revealed (or reminded us) the significance of Stanley carrying Zero up the mountain, I was impressed by the cleverness of the whole story.
ReplyDeleteGood post! I agree with Callie; I think I responded so well to the book because I initally read and reread it so many times as a child. It's easy to switch back into that carefree reading mode of a child when you're reading a book you loved in the 3rd grade. I also like how you tied in your family story. I think its important for children to have relatable things in texts to help them better understand and enjoy the texts more.
ReplyDeleteAlas! I am in the minority and found this book sort of tiresome! I did not read it as a child, and struggled to understand the perspectives and ideas of some of the characters. I do agree with Aimee that one of the more interesting segments of the book was the family history/myths. I liked how these memories occurred in the text seemingly randomly; they were written as Stanley thought of them. I also felt a little puzzled and disappointed by how nicely everything turned around for Stanley and Zero. I wonder if Sacher is making some sort of criticism about what makes good endings.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are trying to say but I also really liked the book. I thought is was a great, easy, and fun read for all of us. Although in the beginning it is quite hard to understand because of the back and forth between the reality and the past, but once we understand everything it is a great book. I also really like the history behind it.
ReplyDeleteThough you make a good point as to your frustration with the "tidiness" of the book, I am also going to have to agree with the majority and say that I think this tidiness strengthens the ideas of bullying, racism, etc. We tend to overlook things that are laid out almost too simple for us and I think that if we dig deeper we can extract what is really meant by the simplicity. For me, this is how many children's narratives like Aesop's fables work and I really enjoy interpreting something so simple into a complex idea... I'm just weird like that ha.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting way to look at Holes. I am actually quite curious about your great great grandparents plantation fire. Also I'm not sure if I agree with how it is irrelevant when Sachar wraps up the story nicely. I believe it takes some of the importance away, but not necessarily the entire idea.
ReplyDelete