I can’t say that I’m not fascinated by Galatea 2.2. In fact, I’m very interested in the novel. I’m still fairly early into it, having not had much time to read, yet I am intrigued by it.
When I first began the novel, I found that I was left with a sensation of disappointment at the style. I didn’t enjoy it in the slightest. It seemed as if I had seen this sort of play on different again and again and, to be frank, I started feeling a bit as if the writers we’ve been reading do things just to be different, not because their writing is different, or that the style of the book just pushed them there. Yet, the more I read of this particular novel, the more I came to realize that there is something rather fascinating by it. Perhaps it is the blurring the line between reality and fiction. Richard Powers is Richard Powers. He’s an author, a professor, and he really did return to his alma-mater to work. He has really written four novels. Yet, Richard Powers the character is not Richard Powers the author. The fact that they have the same biography is somewhat misleading. Richard Powers is a character, designed to be a representation of what Richard Powers the writer wants to put forward. However, Powers the writer chose Powers the character for very specific reasons. He had to understand that by making this story a biography of sorts, his own autobiography, fictionalized, that he was creating a world that was suddenly that much more believable. After all, we know that Richard Powers is a real man and we know that he penned the book. Therefore, when he paints a Powers who is sometimes a deeply flawed character, we believe it. We believe everything we are told about Powers and we would never question. Even as we are aware that we are reading fiction, we know that the fiction blends itself into a sort of pseudo-reality and we are fascinated by it. You chould just imagine the Oprahesque scene that could take place when the readers of this novel in the outside world suddenly came to the understanding that Richard Powers and his association with Philip Lentz is not actually a historical occurance connected with either men, that, indeed there is no Lentz, he is a fictional character occupying the life of a real man who, though the book accurately reflects his backstory, is not the man we think we know by throughout the book.
One wonders by the end just how much is fact and how much is ficiton. We know we shouldn’t particularly care, that we should just accept the entire novel, but the question is there, burning into our minds. We need to know, don’t we? Is C. real? Do we want her to be real? Do we want Richard’s relationship to be real in the same tempestuous manner? Or would it be better if she were as fictional as Helen? Indeed, can we even assume Helen to be false. Yes, she’s a computer program. But does that mean she doesn’t exist, didn’t exist? Well, it is a book of fiction, isn’t it? Slowly lines get blurred.
February 25, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Hi Ryan,
I thought that Powers’ line between reality and fiction was an interesting one as well. Though I don’t like the book at all, the confusion that we as readers have makes the story more interesting. I was also sitting at my desk asking myself “Is this the real Powers or the fictionalized Powers?” I don’t find this tactic to be endearing in the least, but it is an interesting way to put a spin on things. It leaves things ambiguous and up in the air, but I’m not sure how well it is working for the plot.
Allison
February 25, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Ryan,
Yay!!! I’m so glad someone wrote on the Richard Powers author/character thing. It made my post rather difficult to articulate. You bring up some very difficult, but interesting, questions at the end of your post. Is C. real? Do we want her to be? Richard Powers (author) writes Richard Powers (character) as having very complicated relationships with women. Largely, he sucks them dry for material, and somehow destroys their lives, hopes and dreams. In writing himself into the novel, or at least someone with the same name and general biography, Richard Powers (the author) is taking a very dangerous step. It is not often that one can successfully characterize themselves. If this is what he’s doing, I’d say Richard Powers is a pretty selfish jerk. Like you pointed out, the lines between reality and fiction are quickly blurring. Do you think that Powers’s characterization of himself is a way of critiquing the biographical reading that some people (like me) are fond of using when analyzing a work of fiction, or is it possible that he is attempting to prove himself capable of successfully characterizing himself when others have failed, much like he is using this novel to prove that he is capable of writing in a world that thinks it does not need novels?
Esther