Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
I'm starting to feel sorry for Margaret Atwood! If you take this to its logical extreme, does any work of fiction serve a real purpose? (I'm considering this book to be fiction because that's what it is, though based on facts, rather than being a biography of Grace Marks.) For me, a work of fiction that isn't light-hearted fluff purely for entertainment, is an examination of the human condition.
I think it is reasonable to say that Atwood took the bare known facts and imagined a scenario that wasn't too far-fetched where Grace might or might not have been an active participant in one or both murders. She considered why Grace might have acted as she did if she was innocent of committing the murders, and I think the scenario is plausible. She was young, she was afraid, she couldn't see what to do to stop McDermott, and so on.
But Atwood also wrote in a way that we simply do not know for certain whether Grace was innocent or guilty, and I rather liked that.
|
I certainly don't mind "The Lady or the Tiger?" aspect of
Alias Grace and I think there's much to be said for literature that's open-ended. In fact, I deplore the J.K. Rowlings who seem to want to control their readers' reactions and to leave no possibility of conjecture even about future events.
But it also seems that somehow Atwood failed in whole or in part and that's what we're trying to figure out. Everyone seems to agree that the novel dragged. There also seems to be some agreement that various elements didn't advance the story line, which leaves Atwood open to the charge of pretentiousness.
I honestly don't know. The elements of this story seem like it would result in a winner, but much as I'd like to have been caught up in the story, I wasn't. Maybe it's as simple as essentially knowing the ending early on and that watching the story play out wasn't all that compelling.