What immediately
strikes the reader about Jennifer Egan’s “Black Box” is her highly unusual
style of writing. Most notably, the
story was released as a series of 47 tweets via the New Yorker’s Fiction Twitter feed.
This may seem an odd choice at first, but there is some significance to
Egan’s use of Twitter here that works very well with her story. In it, the unnamed central character is some
sort of American intelligence agent tasked with gathering information on a violent
man, her “Designated Mate,” who seemingly poses a threat to the U.S. The way Egan presents her story through
tweets goes along with the whole spy genre in a very interesting way. The reader is given bits of information in
packets of 140 characters or fewer that contain rather tense language, which makes
the story resemble the type of communication one would expect from a spy. Instead of simply writing “Black Box” in a
more traditional style, this was a unique way for Egan to engage the reader
while using the format of Twitter to her advantage in mirroring the spy theme
of her story.
Another noteworthy
aspect of Egan’s writing style is her choice to use the 2nd person voice
coupled with hypothetical speech. The
way in which this played out was very interesting. While the text was littered with words like “if,”
“may,” and “should,” Egan nonetheless is able to construct a concrete narrative
around her main character. Though they
are somewhat limited, there are a background story and a sense of emotion from
the unnamed female character. This, combined
with the fact that the story is written like an instruction manual, makes for a
very strange read. I had trouble
understanding why Egan wrote the story as a series of hypotheticals, so here is
the question I will leave you with: Is there
any meaning to be found in Egan’s decision to tell “Black Box” this way? Why not just write it straightforwardly using
past tense and first or third person?
Here is an interesting article that offers an opinion on the use of Twitter to disseminate works of literature:
I think the question you have raised (what is the purpose of writing a story with so many hypotheticals?) is an extremely interesting one. Personally, I believe that the answer relates directly to what you have been saying throughout your post. It makes sense that Egan uses so many hypotheticals because a spy, who faces unknown dangers with every step they take, has to put up with many hypothetical situations. For instance, the narrator of the story constantly supplies the spy with suggestions that may or may not apply to their specific situation (ex-a flash may be activated on the eye-camera, it may be hard to believe that other people are in the helicopter coming to rescue the spy, etc.). These “what ifs” are strategically used to underscore the uncertainty and variety that all spies face while on a mission. So, all of these hypothetical statements serve the ultimate purpose of helping the reader to understand what goes through the mind of a spy while they are making sense of a scenario or environment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kyle wrote above. In addition, I think that this style emphasizes the fact that the woman was really just an ordinary citizen who was swept up into the intelligence community through her husband. While reading the short tweets with the styles "if this," "if that," "it may be that," it would conjure an image in my mind of a nervous, somewhat overwhelmed person being briefed before the big mission. She knows she is a regular person, but she is doing the best she can to become the security agent her country wants her to be. It poses an interesting question on how much do regular citizens of a country owe to the homeland; how far must we go for the greater good? The beauties weren't paid and ultimately couldn't know if what they did was helpful or not.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have a question if anyone else wants to comment. We hear of the husband in a number of the tweets, and it is mentioned that it is because of his status that the main character became a beauty. Do you think that the husband forced her to do this? Or maybe he pushed her gently to do it? Basically, I'm asking what you all make of the role he played in her becoming a spy, and how he could've felt about it, knowing that she very possibly could never return.
I really enjoyed the way the story was written. The choice to write in the second person was utterly brilliant on so many levels and is what really makes the story great. The second person is probably the hardest voice to write in, but its payoff is that it is the most immersive and thus the most able to help the reader to suspend disbelief. Unlike first or third, the main character is not some random person, but "you" the reader. Thus, the reader feels every pain inflicted to the main character vicariously in a way that the other voices could not. This is absolutely key in getting Egan's main idea across. "Black Box" is all about the exploitation and degradation of women in society. By using the second person, Egan makes the reader feel the fear of being raped, the discomfort of hiding their true self, and ultimately how women are treated as if only their body matters. The story is also aided by the vagueness of the story: as the other mentioned, Egan often uses hypotheticals when discussing what happens, and rarely describes anything in detail. This too aids in the suspension of disbelief and immersion in the story, as it prompts the reader to fill the gaps with their own images and thoughts, making the story, and thus its themes, all the more real.
ReplyDelete