It should be simple. You read a book, and you like it or you don’t. Yes or no. However, what if it is neither? What if you can’t decide? And as you’ve probably figured out, I have absolutely no idea about how I feel about Skellig, and that feels very uncomfortable. I feel like Goldilocks who can’t find an opinion that is just right. If I were to say, that yes, I liked the book. I would get caught up in the details that frustrate me. I found it infuriating that Michael’s parents choose to buy such an irresponsible house with a baby on the way. I found Mina’s home-schooled educated superiority infuriating, and I couldn’t get past shifting focus on who or what Skellig was. Yet if I were to decide that I absolutely did not like the book, I wouldn’t be able to move beyond the themes that I related to in the book. I liked the connectedness between the characters, Michael and Mina, Michael and his sister, and especially Skellig and the baby. I liked that Michael was courageous enough to put Skellig before himself. I want to have a firm stance on one side of the argument or the other, but I can’t. And maybe that is the point.
Just like I can’t decide whether or not I liked Skellig, I can’t figure out the enigma of the namesake of the book. I have to wonder about David Almond’s intentions as he wrote this book. Were the uncertainty and the questioning his intention in writing this story? Readers are given evidence that Skellig is an owl, an angel, a man, and a dream. He happily eats bugs and mice, although he prefers 27 and 53, and even spits up pellets containing bones and skin of small vermin. Michael feels “the feathers, and beneath them the bones and sinews and muscles that supported them”; readers are led to believe by Mina’s knowledge of hollow birds’ bones that this must be the case for Skellig’s wings. Yet we are also led to believe that Skellig is not a bird, he is far more heavenly-he is an angel. Early on we hear Michael’s mother explain the purpose of shoulder blades. “’They say that shoulder blades are where your wings were, when you were an angel…They say they’re where your wings will grow again one day.’” We are not surprised that Skellig’s suit coat is restraining wings, growing from his shoulders. But wait-maybe he isn’t an owl or an angel. Maybe he is just a really special, human man. Humans suffer from Arthur Itis, and humans, like Skellig, have a capacity for love and companionship. However there is still support for one more explanation; maybe he isn’t even real at all. Michael’s mother tells him, “’I saw this man…another dream…he was standing over the baby.’” Maybe, maybe, maybe. Some might like the uncertainty of the novel, but I felt that there was too much ambiguity. There aren’t enough details to prove anything as being fact. While I can appreciate that all opinions can be supported in the text, I found it to be frustrating that the purpose of Skellig is that an answer isn’t possible.
One of the reasons there is so much ambiguity in Almond’s book is that everything has a double meaning. The author uses these multi-dimensional characters and objects as symbols that are meant to express more than one meaning at a time. Not much time goes by in the course of this novel but we learn in the end of the book that “it was really spring at last”. Spring, being a common symbol to evoke the feeling of new beginnings, has been on its way throughout the book, but finally appears when Michael is at peace with the baby and Skellig. There is a lot of moving going in the book: Michael moves to a new house, the baby is moved back to the hospital, and Skellig is moved into Mina’s abandoned house. These moves can represent how the characters are better able to take care of their loved ones. Michael’s father works night and day to make a home that is better for Joy. The baby has to go back to the hospital so that the doctors can better care for her and make her healthy, and Mina and Michael bring Skellig to a safe, roomier place so that he can get stronger with their help. One scene in particular was built upon very interesting symbolism. The fledglings, on which Mina and Michael have kept such a close eye, have finally emerged from their nest but are not yet ready to fly; they were hidden safely under the hedges by their parents so that they could be cared for and protected. The parents will keep a close eye on them, feeding and watching, until the little ones are strong enough to fly. This is an especially poignant scene considering that Michael’s baby sister is dying in a hospital and needs to be under constant observation. Mina is fascinated by the process and shares it with Michael’s father, who then tells Mina to “’just keep believing…and everything will be fine.’” The father understands the parallels between these vulnerable baby birds and his baby daughter. Symbolism adds depth to a novel. However, in Skellig is the symbolism too much of a good thing? The intended audience, adolescents, might pick up on some of the hidden details. But when everything is a symbol for something else, I know that even I missed out on some of the underlying themes.
Structure of a novel is a powerful tool. In the case of Skellig, it helps to set up the pace and makes it more readable. The chapters of this novel are extremely short; most are just two or three pages. Because of this, there are so many natural breaks that as a reader you don’t know which one to take. As I read, I could always find an excuse to read just one or two more pages because it wasn’t committing that much more time to continue reading. Because of this structural choice, I found that the book was very easy to read. It was easy to continue to read and to maintain interest in what you were reading. Also, by having many short chapters, the pace of the book was very fast. There weren’t breaks in time in the plot, and therefore there weren’t breaks in the writing. It created the effect that, as a reader, we were being given all of the information; we were truly a bystander to the action of the novel. While structure isn’t the most powerful of all literary elements, it definitely plays an important role in setting the pace and readability of a novel.
As you may have read from my blog, I completely agree about the structure of the book. While it seems like such a small thing, I believe that the short chapters really added to the flow of the book. In my small group discussion about the book, we talked about how there were not many events to keep an reader interested in the novel. Even the mysteries of the novel such as Skellig were never really answered and we were left without any sort of climax or strong development. Yet, I think that these short chapters made the book more exciting. It made it easier to read because, as you said, you can always read a few pages more. I also like what you said about how it makes the reader feel as though they are watching the scenes unfold as they happen. This is interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Do you think that if there were no chapters it would have even a greater flow? I understand what you mean though about there never really being any true breaks in the narrative.
ReplyDeleteI also liked your discussion about certainty. You said that you struggled to even identify how you felt about the book. You also talked about the readers never finding out who Skellig is and how everything has a double meaning. I never really thought about these double meanings. I think that you mention two things here: First, you allude to the idea of there being multiple interpretations of something, such as who or what Skellig is. Secondly, you discuss the idea of looking beyond and finding meaning that is beyond the concrete. You talk about the meaning and connotation of Spring or the role of the birds in the narrative. What do you think the purpose of this symbolism was? How do you think that it added to the theme and development of the book? You mentioned that you thought that the symbolism might have been too much or lost on adolescent readers. Do you think that the this would have hindered the ability for the readers to enjoy or understand the deeper meanings of the text?
On that note, I'm interested to hear about what you think the deeper meanings of the text are. You mentioned that you thought the point of the book was to establish uncertainty. On some level, I agree. However, I do not necessarily feel that the book illustrated that there was no certainty. I do not think that the book was trying to make us uncomfortable or to question our beliefs. Or at least not the beliefs that are inherently our own. Rather, I think that the book wanted us to question what “certainty” is placed on us and what is our own. I do not think that the book intended you to accept your uncertainty. Instead, I got the sense that the book wanted us to realize that there was no right answer. The right answer was our answer. I felt that this book was very empowering. As I mentioned in my blog, I did not feel that it mattered what Skellig was. What mattered is what he did for Michael. He taught Michael about love and gave him the hope to continue to persevere. Whether he was real or not, I felt that it did not matter. What mattered is that what he believed worked for him.
You're right though. The book does put any binaries into question. It looks at evolution at the same time that it establishes religious connotations. It questions the role of school, nature, and many other things. I agree with you that the book makes us question what is true and what is forced upon us to be true. It kind of puts the pressure on us to make our own truth and meaning, which is stressful. Rarely in life are we able to make our own truth. We often believe that truth is forced upon us. Yet, in the end all truth is created. What is socially created is often believed to be true, but whose to say that our individual creations are not true as well or instead of?
I think that the author intentionally created a sense of "do I like this book or not" when writing Skellig. It is this uncertainty that creates many of the themes in Skellig. What is Skellig? What role does he play in the novel? Is he linked to the baby sister?
ReplyDeleteI think that David Almond wanted the reader to ask these questions as he or she read the novel. Almond did not want the reader to take anything at face value. By questioning the reader creates a larger buy in to the novel, thus deepening the message.