tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518835947947433157.post5172589700960106713..comments2021-09-09T21:16:02.942-07:00Comments on Writing (about) Time: Thoughts Concerning Temporal Play in Contemporary Narratives: Fate, Fixed Points in Time, and Concurrent LivesMelissa Ameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13372494777317072570noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518835947947433157.post-70774002541667019542016-02-17T16:02:50.276-08:002016-02-17T16:02:50.276-08:00While reading this novel, there were a few differe...While reading this novel, there were a few different ideas that popped into my head, primarily of works that have done this theme before. For example, the film Groundhog Day had a similar concept of repetitive life, albeit from a point limited from one day to the next rather than years. Bill Murray's character Phil Connors is trapped and reliving Groundhog Day for an exceedingly long time (a fan theory suggests approximately 34 years that his character has relived the same day over and over). But unlike Ursula, Phil has the ability to remember each and every day, each and every event as it occurs, has occurred, or will occurred. He is stuck in this perpetual repetition presumably (as far as the plot goes) as a means to repent for the fact he is a fairly awful, selfish person. In similar, albeit opposite regards, an episode of Supernatural titled "The Mystery Spot" plays along a similar narrative; Sam has to repeatedly relive the same day over and over, ending each day with his brother, Dean, dying in a different way (many times grotesquely humorous). But rather than being forced to learn a lesson based on his selfishness, this repetition is caused by a presumed demon called Trickster. Even the film Butterfly Effect does something similar in regards to repeating certain events and changing the outcome (via a childhood journal read by the main character). But unlike Life After Life, all three of these narratives have one thing in common: the main character always is conscious of the repetition and what is going on around them, consistently trying to change the outcome through their own ambitions (either failing or not).<br /><br />But one thing that left me wondering after reading this novel (and thinking about the other examples) was the idea that it is simply a very extended and intricate version of a story not unlike Margaret Atwood's "Happy Endings" that we read earlier in the semester. Rather than the idea that "John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." in every version, it instead ends up with "Ursula dies." repeated over and over in various forms. But John and Mary don't relive the same scenarios over and over but are instead independent characters in each scenario and instead being adapted for each scenario in some way; their consciousness of their situation would have no relevance because they are not simultaneously and chronologically living each scenario. <br /><br />Instead, this novel seems like a mix between Atwood's "Happy Endings" and the short story "The Garden of Forking Paths" by Jorge Luis Borges wherein the characters realize and understand that their lives and time itself is instead an "infinite labyrinth" of possibilities; even the most minor of changes results in another fork all culminating until the end of time. But like the Garden, you note that different versions of Ursula's lives collide (either subtly or extremely), causing details to completely change or be entirely nonexistent in the current lifeline (such as, you noted, Dr. Kellet's son or Ursula's ex-husband). Borges's Garden makes note of this as well, describing that oftentimes two decisions, regardless of their choice, will intersect somewhere in their paths but will then proceed to branch once again when another choice forces an alternate timeline (a concept that could in itself provide another wildly different explanation for the novel).<br /><br />I believe in fate but I also believe in free will, somewhat of a mixture between the two. While I believe that everything that happens or will happen to us does so for a reason, I believe that those things will happen regardless of the choices we make in life. I believe that rather than a forking path or "story tree," our lives involve an intricate collection of helixes that branch off, either widely or not, but eventually return to a central path to continue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11104567587136980910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8518835947947433157.post-54771608875958044882016-02-17T15:57:37.890-08:002016-02-17T15:57:37.890-08:00To answer your beginning question, I don't bel...To answer your beginning question, I don't believe strongly in fate. I believe that consciously we make decisions that control our fate. To move past that though, I want to touch on your interesting concept of what Atkinson is trying to say. Thinking in a larger scope, that more than just Ursula is going through the same occurrences of reincarnation is interesting. I didn't dwell too much on the idea because of the fact the story is centered around Ursula. In your example at the end of this blog, the one suggesting that Sylvie may be going through the same process makes sense, but I read it in a different manner. I saw Sylvie having the scissors as just another effect of Ursula's reincarnation. I believe that Sylvie had them in order to possibly save Ursula's life, and hence move forward. I also noticed, within the fixed moments in life that you were talking about, that there seemed more to be the one's that you mentioned. The first, and possibly obvious one, is that in every life Ursula has the same name. Now granted, it makes sense as a writer to keep the name the same, it would confuse the reader otherwise. However, it would seem that it is fixed that her name should stay the same in every reincarnation. The other interesting one is the fact that Clarence's death seems to be a fixed point as well. No matter what timeline he appears in, his death eventually happens. It may be just because of Ursula's age that she can't force a bigger change, but it may also seem as though Clarence is doomed to die no matter what. Overall, this was an interesting read. I loved the Doctor Who references (may just be because I've seen the episodes before) and it helped add to the direction of what you were discussing here.Ty Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13015031664359186427noreply@blogger.com