This discussion is open to anyone--whether or not you're a writer, whether or not I know you, and whether or not you've participated in WBC before. The more, the merrier! Drop us a one-liner or a book report or anything in between. I only ask that everyone be respectful of the author and fellow commenters.
You do not need a LiveJournal account to comment. Simply mark the "Anonymous" bubble. Then type your comment in the "Message" box, type your first name at the bottom of the message, and click "Post Comment." If you want to respond to an already-posted comment, click on that comment's "Reply" link. A new box will pop up below the old comment. That person, in turn, can reply to your comment, and so on and so forth. Or someone else can jump into the conversation. Thus, a hierarchy of comments will form, very easy to follow with a mere glance (no more endless scrolling and trying to keep track of who said what). If you have any technical difficulties, please let me know!
January's book is WHEN YOU REACH ME by Rebecca Stead. To keep from spoiling the book for those who haven’t read it yet, I’ll post the discussion questions in the first comment of this post. If you have read the book, click on “Leave a comment” to respond with your thoughts. If you haven’t read it, then what are you waiting for?
One thing I need to explain for the sake of the discussion questions--the difference between foreshadowing and telegraphing. In the words of Rachelle Gardner:
Foreshadowing is when you purposely drop tiny hints about what's going to happen later in the novel, to heighten the effect or the suspense. It might not even be a hint, but an image or idea that thematically relates to whatever's going to happen later. It's like subtle shading to plant tiny, even imperceptible, seeds in your reader's mind.
Telegraphing is giving away too much, too soon, thereby ruining the suspense, or the impact of the event.
End quote.
So with that in mind . . . let the discussion begin!
- Location:office
- Mood:
accomplished
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6)
emrowan- E. M. Rowan
- My website
Page Summary
- emrowan : Discussion Questions [+0]
- emrowan : Random Things I Loved [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+3]
- (Anonymous) : book club [+5]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+5]
- (Anonymous) : When You Reach Me [+5]
- (Anonymous) : help! [+1]
- (Anonymous) : thnx for sharing [+0]
- (Anonymous) : ugelyfxz xnke [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Порно [+0]
- (Anonymous) : iphone 3g jailbreak eunlockiphone3g [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Book Club [+0]
Comments
2. This book reminded me of a puzzle--a collection of pretty pieces which together reveal a beautiful, underlying meaning. The story jumped from past to present to future, from 1st person POV to 2nd person (Miranda writing her letter). Did you find it confusing or appropriate?
3. What did you think of the role A WRINKLE IN TIME played in the story? What role did the setting (Manhattan in the '70s) play?
4. Did Miranda have a realistic "voice" for a 6th grade girl? Did you like the writing style and the narrating for the sake of a letter?
5. Just for fun--who was your favorite character? What was your favorite part? :-)
I loved how Page 1 establishes so much right off the bat: the date, the Pyramid theme, and the mysteries of "you" and "the letter." I had no idea what she was talking about, but I was hooked.
On p. 11, Miranda says, "Sal used to be my best friend." That one line intrigued me. It didn't drag me down like a few paragraphs of backstory would.
Page 27 was the first description of Miranda that I noticed, and even that was so subtle I almost missed it.
The writing style seems so simple . . . which means it was REALLY hard to write.
Some of the scenes felt random the first time I read them . . . but later I realized their importance. Stead made the most of every scene; every word counts.
I had to read it more than once--a sign of a well-written mystery.
I love this realistic book with its science fiction twist.
1. Telegraphing, definitely. I knew the end before I was a third of the way through the book. Very disappointing.
2. I'm not sure it was confusing or appropriate. What I do know is that it allowed me to set the book aside without regret, and have difficulty picking it back up. So again, disappointing.
3. The best thing about the book was that it reminded me that I have yet to read A Wrinkle in Time.
4. The narrating for a letter was a unique idea, and she did an okay job of trying to pull it off.
5. Favorite character - the epileptic girl (forgot her name and already returned the book). Favorite part - the scene where they leave Jimmy's because they find out he's a bigot (the one part of the book I didn't predict).
Thanks all,
Pat.
Donna
Great comment, Mom--thank you!! :-)
I think I will have to put that quote on my bulletin board, next to the Tolkein quote. :-)
I also enjoyed how every scene counted. I didn't want to miss anything!
1. I didn't guess at anything until she revealed it "when the veil pulled away for a moment" (great image). I enjoyed all her foreshadows.
2. It was a beautiful puzzle. When did she leave from the present, though? I thought that all the future and past scenes were in letters. Can you remind me? She did write seamlessly, so I didn't catch very often if something was different POV, past, present, or future, which means that she made it WORK!
3. I liked the role that WRINKLE IN TIME played. It seems very realistic. I remember being shaped so much by what I read and liked to keep my books close to me. She didn't play up the setting at all, though. She didn't use it, and I shrugged it off and forgot her setting most of the time. In fact, I think that the racial prejudices could've been played up a lot more because of the times. I liked how she focused more on the characters, though, than the setting.
5. My favorite character is her crush (I forget his name right now). He was so much fun to read about and I like sunny and kinda weird characters like that. A lot. Like Rudy in The Book Thief. I think he stole every scene he was in. I also liked her Mom's boyfriend.
My favorite part was when she went to the bathroom with the girl at the end. I touched me so much. And I must say, changed me. I loved her inner journey. I love to read about characters who act selflessly.I love it how Stead knows what children are capable of. Wow. IT was a great scene.
-Ellie Ann
1. I, too, didn't figure out the full mystery until "the veil pulled away." The first time I "read" the story was via audiobook, so it's not like I could easily go back and reread excerpts and put all the details together in my head. I knew she was hinting and foreshadowing, but I couldn't put together the puzzle!
2. Technically, maybe she didn't leave the present. If the letter-writing is present, then she's just describing what happened in the past . . . and we learn bits of the future based on the info the Laughing Man brings back. Like you said, it was very seamless, so I didn't always notice the time frame. I guess it didn't matter--I still loved it!
3. On Amazon, there's an interview with Rebecca Stead, and one of the questions asked why she chose Manhattan in the 70s as the setting. She said that was the time/place she grew up, and she incorporated details from her childhood. But the main reason she used the 70s instead of modern day--she thinks kids back then were more independent than they are today. You know how Miranda walks through the city (when not with Sal), lets herself in, and stays in the apartment until her mom gets home? Do current-day 6th graders living in the city do that? Maybe--I have no idea--but Stead thought it would unrealistic. So even if she could've played up the setting more, apparently she did have a valid reason for choosing it.
4. Where's your #4?? LOL.
5. Colin is the crush, and Richard is her mom's boyfriend--I liked both of them, too! OH, I absolutely LOVED Rudy--very much a scene-stealer.
Miranda does have a wonderful inner journey--I loved how she grew and changed. She not only helped the girl go to the bathroom, but IN THE SAME SCENE she made a truce with . . . wow, her name just eluded me. Annemarie's former friend, you know who I mean? Anyway, that scene blew me away. And I hope other kids who read it will be inspired to rise above petty differences and reach out to others. Can you imagine--having such an effect on young readers?? I guess that's what we hope to achieve someday. :-)
Thanks for your discussion!!
2. I noticed her writing in 2nd person, but I didn't notice the change from 1st to 2nd. I thought it was very fitting and interesting to think that the entire book is actually a letter.
3. As you know, the only time I read A Wrinkle in Time was in fifth grade, skimming. So, I don't remember that much. From what I do remember (and from what is mentioned in the book), I think there is a parallel between Meg going to Camozotz to save their Dad (& all the time travel that went along with that) and Marcus going back in time to save Sal & himself. I mean, Meg went to save her Dad, but I've been thinking- why did Marcus go back to save Sal? I've come up with several thoughts. Firstly, as we know, Julia was dead when he went back in time. Maybe he went to save Sal, because he knew that in death, he would be with his love. Or maybe he cared about saving a friend of a friend (Miranda). Or maybe, he regretted punching Sal. Or maybe, he simply did not want to see a young boy die like Sal would have. Marcus, the laughing man, is quite the extraordinary boy, whatever reason.
4. I thought Miranda sounded like a mature sixth grader- a bit like myself in sixth grade, if I do say so. If you also factor in the fact that city kids seem to grow up faster than small town kids, her voice seems realistic. All the things about friendship and a first crush and changes with friends were very realistic. I think that was one of the times I, myself, most changed, and then again when I entered HS. Moving from fifth to sixth (or eighth to ninth) are times when kids, I think, step up to a higher level of maturity.
5. My favorite character, I think, was Marcus. It's very hard to choose, though. I loved Sal and wished he was in more; Colin provided comic relief; Marcus (or the laughing man)was unswervingly thoughtful- disregarding the reason he punched Sal. A few of my favorite parts were when Miranda & Belle were talking about AWIT and Belle said, "Well it's simple to love someone, but it's hard to know when you need to say it out loud." I also liked when Miranda was revealing the mystery and she realized that the man that appeared & disappeared in between the cars was Marcus figuring out how to get there. Also, one of my all time favorite brain "pictures" was of Miranda lying under the mailbox, looking at the drawing of Julia.
Sav
1. I'm terrible at solving mysteries too, LOL. And holy moly, you're asking time travel questions--not sure if I can handle the answers! Okay, let me ponder . . . I don't think the Marcus in the story could know he was the Laughing Man. 6th grader-Marcus doesn't have all the knowledge and insight of the Laughing Man. Remember how the Laughing Man always avoided Marcus? He would turn and run away if he got too close, because he didn't want young Marcus to recognize him. They're the same person, and yet their minds are different. I think Marcus cried because Sal ran into the street and nearly got killed and/or because the Laughing Man DID get killed (but not because Marcus knew who the Laughing Man really was). Does that make any sense, or am I way off?
2. I loved the concept of a whole book being a letter (or if not the actual letter, at least thinking about the letter!).
3. I think all your thoughts are right in a collective sort of way. Since Marcus-punching-Sal set off a chain of events, which culminated when Sal was scared of Marcus and ran into the street, maybe Marcus blamed himself for Sal's near death and wanted to set right his mistake. And no doubt Marcus also cared about how Miranda would feel if Sal died. I thought it was so sad when the Laughing Man mentioned Julia, and how she had already died. Extraordinary indeed . . .
4. Thanks for confirming this--loved your insight! :-)
5. I wanted more Sal, too; he's such a major factor in the book, and yet he gets little "screen time." And I love that brain picture of Miranda lying under the mailbox!
Thanks so much for the brilliant comment!!
Vic
Vic
So Marcus was crying for the Laughing Man's life, but didn't know (until he gets Miranda's letter) that the Laughing Man was HIMSELF. And once he gets the letter, part of him might feel relieved that someone ELSE didn't have to die . . . but the other part might tremble at the thought of HIS OWN death. Craziness to fathom; extraordinary for sure!
Thank you for your comments!! See you soon!! :-)
First off, I do love Miranda's voice. She seems like an authentic 12 year old Upper West Sider, and her coming-of-age in this setting resonated strongly with me. I liked her observations about her apartment and the apartments of her friends. Ms. Stead is quite a stylist, and there were many moments when her words just danced in front of me.
All that said, I just get stuck when trying to untangle the time-travel business. I don't think I really "get" how Marcus found the key in the fire hose (My daughters tell me that Miranda told him where to find the key, in the letter she wrote to him...). *When* did Miranda write that letter? Just thinking about this makes my brain spin. Many other, similar, questions persist. If someone could *walk* *me* *through* *this* I would be very grateful.
I feel a little uneasy asking this. I mean, there's that saying about how explaining a joke kind of ruins it; if you don't get it, you don't get it. I'm hoping maybe someone will have some sympathy. I really do love this book, but I find myself unable to fully appreciate it. Thanks!
John
Think of the book itself as the "letter" Miranda wrote to Marcus. The way she starts with the day Marcus punches Sal--that was the beginning of the letter. Then she wrote about everything that happened afterwards. The reason she wrote the letter? Because Marcus/Laughing Man asked her to in the notes he left for her. Without the letter, he would be helpless. He would never know where the key was hidden, or any of the other details he needed to save Sal. During the game show, when the veil lifted away and Miranda figured out the whole mystery of Marcus and the Laughing Man, she believed the notes and everything else. She wrote the letter and planned to give it to Marcus (though she doesn't actually give it to him within the confines of the novel). We know she gives it to him at some point though, cause otherwise Marcus would never know to study time travel and learn how to come back in time and save Sal. When Marcus grows up and prepares to time-travel, he has to write those notes and ask Miranda to give him the letter when he's still a boy (because time is like a diamond ring!).
I'm sorry, I don't know if that helped at all. Does it make any more sense now? If not, I will try to think of a different way of phrasing it!
And thanks for reading this to your daughters--what a great dad you must be!
Thanks for your guidance. John
John
Remember when Marcus is trying to explain time travel to Miranda? He explains time as a collection of photographs, each a snapshot of time. Then the one girl (I forgot her name! The girl Marcus ends up marrying in the future) explained time as a diamond ring, each diamond being a moment in time. The ring was a circle--it had no beginning or end. You're thinking there has to be a "beginning" to the time loop, but it doesn't work that way. All points in time are happening instantaneously. Once grown-up Marcus comes back in time to leave the notes for Miranda, all points in time show the effects of that. It's like it always has been that way. There is no first time or last time or middle time. What is, is.
I'm not sure how else to explain it! How do you feel about it now?
Yes, your explanation does make sense to me. I think I can sleep more easily now. : )
None of my confusion about time travel detracted from my enjoyment or appreciation of the book. I'm on my third reading, and I am marveling at how economical the narrative is. It really amazes me how the author is able to develop these characters in such short order, all the while moving the story (several stories, really) forward. It's a sign of her talent that the narrative seems to unfold so effortlessly.
The girl's name is Julia, by the way.
I like the Peanuts image. My daughter has a little plastic model of it -- complete with a 5" tall Lucy Van Pelt. She (my daughter, not Lucy) is a good explainer, too. Thanks for taking the time to share your insights with me.
Best,
John
I agree--the narrative is seamless, effortless, and economical. She makes every word count toward character development or plot, or both! It looks so easy . . . but it's not! Kudos to Stead for a fabulous job; she definitely deserved the Newbery.
Oh, thanks for reminding me of Julia!
I used to collect Peanuts when I was a kid. :-) Though I don't have a model of that image, LOL!
I recently finished another book your daughters may enjoy. I loved it. It's called THE EVOLUTION OF CALPURNIA TATE by Jacqueline Kelly. The subject matter is slightly more advanced than WHEN YOU REACH ME, but the protagonist is 11 years old. Worth investigating if you're looking for a new book to read to them!
Happy reading!!
Signature 4: Custom Essay (http://www.ghostpapers.com)