21st Century Literature discussion

In this part, we meet Jun Do, the orphan who insists he is not, and experience with him major parts of his life. Below are a few general questions related to Part I to help start the discussion. But, feel free to ignore them and raise your own or bring up things that strike you as discussable. Please confine discussion to Part I.

1. Why do you think Jun Do believes he is not an orphan but the son of the Orphan Master?
2. Is there some significance to the name Jun Do?
3. How does Jun Do's attitude change over time?

We are told so many times (by Jun Do) that he is the son of the orphan master. It never occurred to me to doubt whether that was true. He does seem to be sort of "head orphan," naming the new ones and controlling who sleeps where and who eats first. I got the impression that he chose to name himself like the other orphans. It did occur to at times to wonder why he did not use his father's name.

I didn't really consider it either, but given how we quickly learn that it is not the facts that matter, but rather the story they determines who is a hero, who is an orphan, who is an enemy of the state, who is Commander Ga. . . It makes sense to ask retroactively how many of Jun Do's explanations about his father were just rationalizations.

As to his name, we learn that it also originates in a story - the story of a hero whose loyalty was doubted because of his heredity (as is the case as well with "our" Jun Do). The historical Jun Do resorted to literal self annihilation as the only way to prove his fealty. What will be the price of survival this time?

Casceil, I cannot recall (or find) whether Jun Do picked his name, as he did for the other orphans. It wasn't long into the book, however, that I wondered about whether the Orphan Master was really his father. As Matthew notes, the story often seems to become the fact, raising for me the question of whether there is any way to ever determine what is true or real.

Karen, naming the orphans after heroes was an interesting touch. We will need to look at your question - "what will be the price of survival this time?" -- when discussing the book as a whole. I suspect there are different ways to view it.

The name seems a bit of a pun on "John Doe" - the name given to someone whose identity is unknown.

Amy wrote: "The name seems a bit of a pun on "John Doe" - the name given to someone whose identity is unknown."

There is discussion of this view in a number of reviews and articles about the book - some agree, some don't. But it certainly does seem to have some relevance, and worth, I think, considering the nuances of again at the end the book.

Jun Do did choose his own name. I seem to remember it was for a Martyr famed for his loyalty, who killed himself to prove his loyalty the state.

It occurred to me to question whether he was the Orphan Masters son precisely because he affirms it so often. Methinks the lady doth protest too much, and all that. I doubt he is, although I suppose we may get drawn through that conclusion and or the other side, to find out that he is, in the end (I do tend to find myself thinking about what the author might do sometimes, rather than the characters... it's a bad habit).

A moment that stood out for me (p94): "a little red light flashed on top, and together they watched as their rescue boat sailed off without them."

Such a wonderfully sad and poignant punctuation of that scene and of their lives.

Terry, I thought that was quite poigant as well (page 63 in hardcover). It was quite a story the Captain and crew came up with to avoid prison. One of the first of the times in the book when story had to become fact. Jun Do becomes quite good at turning story to fact.

I found the Second Mate's story fascinating. It was not until later in the chapter that I understood what he underwent to be denoted "hero." I believe his elevation to hero may have been what caused his later action that once again put the ship's crew in danger.

The thing that bothered me about this Part was the "bumbling fools pull through at the end" way that the North Koreans get treated by the outside world. The North Koreans are charter members of the "Axis of Evil," but Gil gets laughed off when he says he's trying to defect and the Navy doesn't take them seriously, ever over the objections of the South Korean. Also, they bumble their way the kidnappings -- especially the opera singer -- and nobody calls the cops on them.

This is very different from the attitude the a Texans take -- especially Wanda. They treat the delegations like serious members of a nuclear power, not goofs from a bad Adam Sandler movie. I thought that the earlier "international incidents" sacrificed realism for The Joke.

Terry, is there anything so far in the book that would give us reason to believe the narrator is unreliable? It still could be that Jun Do honestly believes he's the Orphan Master's son when he's not, but so far, the narrator doesn't seem to be dubious (at least, not to me... I'm around pg. 140 in the paperback edition).

Matthew, my impression is that every encounter with the outside world puts in stark contrast how ill-prepared and mislead North Korea has left its own people, especially when compared to the West. So far, this book doesn't really seem to take on the threat or horror of North Korea as a political/military force as it does look at individuals and how they attempt to adhere to the demands of their state no matter how ridiculous. As soon as the American establish there's no threat to the fishing boat, they hand over what they consider to be basic safety equipment (fire extinguisher and emergency raft). I saw these two approaches (the bumbling early incidents vs. the meeting in Texas) as sort of blue collar/white collar contrasts--how do the foot soldiers from different cultures interact vs. the "diplomats" (Texans seemed more sympathetic and less ridiculing).

Doesn't North Korea kind of get this sort of ridicule around the globe? Sort of like an unpredictable child, prone to tantrums, but extremely dangerous due to the "toys" with which its been supplied. Is there another country more closed to the outside world?

Great comment on the political situation, Marc. I was thinking something along vaguely similar lines but it hadn't started to come into anything like as sharp a focus.

As for the unreliable narrator, well... in one sense there's quite a bit to tell us he's a good storyteller... but moreso, on this issue specifically (rather than anything to do with a more general unreliability)... he just wants it so desperately, it seems to me. He disassociates himself at every opportunity with the identity of an orphan. And when we look at his 'evidence', it is all very circumstantial. But it's not presented as such -- it's presented as certainty.

To me, this rings of making the facts fit his desires. Of course, none of that means that he *isn't* the Orphan Master's son -- just that the case is far less closed on the matter than he would have us (or himself) believe.

Matthew, you may remember that the South Korean tried to get the Americans to realize the Jun Do was not just a fisherman and was likely spying but was then horrified when the Americans took the picture of Supreme Leader because he know the trouble that would get the crew into. I did not find that the crew's reactions were those of bumbling fools. Nor did I find the American sailors actions unrealistic -- after all, it was a fishing boat, not a destroyer! In Texas, the situation was completely different. The North Koreans were supposidly negotiating for the return of property - they were believed to be high level officials.

Marc, my impression too is that the North Korean government is perceived around the world as a dangerous entity because it is similar to an unpreditable child given to tantrums who has dangerous weapons.

Terry, to me also, Jun Do is not an unreliable narrator. He has convinced himself he is not an orphan but, indeed, the evidence is only circumstancial. And why wouldn't he?

I believe in one of the interviews I read, the author noted that use of an orphan provides a character with a blank slate, which I interpreted to mean that the character was completely shaped by his experiences, uninfluenced by family expectations, etc. Since the Orphan Master treated Jun Do no differently from anyone else, Jun Do really did not have any benefit of family, even if he was not an orphan.

I didn't say he was an unreliable narrator in general. Only that I didn't believe him from the outset about that specific claim. For me, the key issue is the fervour with which he reaffirms the fact to himself. As I said, I think it's a case of 'the lady doth protest too much'. But that's only my personal feeling from the tone and frequency of his proclamations to himself and others.

I agree with you Terry! I do need to watch my use of double negatives!

One thing is clear -- while Jun Do may or may not believe he's an orphan, it seems that everyone else he meets in North Korea clearly believes he is one. Whatever he claims, Jun Do might as well be an orphan.

Peter makes a wonderful point--Jun Do gets treated like an orphan no matter what he actually believes or is! And orphans seems pretty much to be the lowest of the low in Johnson's North Korea (which seems to imply who you know or are associated with determines what kind of job/life you live).

I had asked about the unreliable narrator bit because it's not unlike me to miss glaring examples within books and this book has an interesting narrative approach--the two-page intro prior to part I is a radio announcement spoken in a kind of collective first person; then Part I is a third person omniscient approach... Blah, blah, blah (one day I'll learn to write short posts)... So I went back and looked at how it's first presented:
- "Jun Do's mother was a singer. That was all Jun Do's father, the Orphan Master, would say about her."
- "Only Jun Do was allowed to comfort him, to finally take the bottle from his hands."
- "The surest evidence that the woman in the photo was Jun Do's mother was the unrelenting way the Orphan Master singled him out for punishment. It could only mean that in Jun Do's face, the Orphan Master saw the woman in the picture, a daily reminder of the eternal hurt he felt from losing her. Only a father in that kind of pain could take a boy's shoes in winter. Only a true father, flesh and bone, could burn a son with the smoking end of a coal shovel."

There's some more in there about the Orphan Master applying for the one position that would allow him to watch over his son, but all that is from the narrator's point of view and not Jun Do's. It almost seems like his mother's identity is more questionable--we know she's a singer and that there's a picture of "a woman" (presumed to be the mother).

I think Terry's point about the fervour with which Jun do reaffirms the fact is more about how essential it is for the individual to have a story and how that story is often lost/denied in a society that attempts to control the stories of its people. There's a wonderful phrase in the beginning of Part II--I'm NOT spoiling anything here--where an interrogator describes what they do as "story taking" instead of "storytelling".

Still, the narrator does present things in a way to always leave them somewhat open to question. How would you describe the narrator or the overall tone so far? (I think Matthew raised the issue of realism vs "the Joke" and there does seem to be a kind of underlying absurdity at work.)

[Apologies for such a long rant. I'll be quiet now.]

I think in those passages the separation between narrator and protagonist is not as sharp as that. I call it over the shoulder style, although I'm sure it has a more technical name. Is not first person, but it narrates the world from the protagonist's point of view somewhat. So the claims in those quotes, to my mind, are essentially Jun Do's. This is opinion, not fact, but if not, who actually is the narrator and on what basis does he have these opinions? Does that make sense?

Marc, thanks for collecting the various bits of information about Jun Do and his father. I knew there was more than I was remembering, but I didn't really want to go back and reread that part.

Several times in part one, we see a group of characters jointly deciding on what they will say has happened, and it is always important that "the story" will be one that will get a good reception from higher authority. Jun Do gets very good at convincing himself and others around him of the truth of whatever story has been decided on. I'm listening to the audiobook, and I am most of the way through Part II now. We do get more shifts in point of view in Part II. The narrator for Part I seems to be a more consistent voice, and one that I considered reliable. Even when he is reporting things that seem absurd, he seems to me to be "telling it straight."

Interesting comments about the narrator in Part I. My impression was that Jun Do was the narrator in Part I and that he was telling about his experiences and about the people around him.

Frankly, he was pretty unlikable until he reached the ship. That really seemed a turning point for him in that he moved from just blindly doing as told to seeing the world around him. For example, the difference in the way he reacted to the guy who tried to defect when they were kidnapping to how he protected the Second Mate and the ship's Captain and crew.

Part of the difference in Jun Do's reaction to the two defections had to do with who he was protecting. With his fellow kidnapper, Jun Do was annoyed that his partner had run out on him, and Jun Do also knew that he and the other guy on the boat were going to be the ones to pay the price if the defection was successful. On the Junma, Jun Do developed a friendly relationship with the Second Mate and the Captain. By creating a story that made the defection not a defection, Jun Do was protecting not only the ship's captain and crew, but also the second mate's wife.

I think it speaks volumes about Johnson's writing that Jun Do is so intimately linked with the narrator, but I'll stand firm and say at no point (at least, up to pg. 280) is he the narrator (see narrative point of view). He's definitely the main character. There seem to be 3 modes of narration: 1) the anonymous narrator telling us the bulk of the story (third person); 2) the interrogator from Part II (first person); and, 3) those intermittent radio announcements (voice of the state? first person).

I think Linda and Casceil have touched on some key points where Jun Do starts to change. Without realizing it, those were also the points for me where I started to like or identify with him more.

How does Johnson manage to make believable the kind of roll-with-it stoicism of Jun Do? It's pretty amazing. He's like: "Ok, I'll fight in dark tunnels. Sure, I guess I can kidnap if you want me to. If my arm needs to be bit by a shark, I guess it needs to be bit by a shark."

My question in trying to take this on has become who is Adam Johnson and what knowledge/experience puts him in a place to write this stuff. I see he has apparently done a lot of pieces for various magazines. I'll go look at some of the reviews to try to answer my own questions. But so far it feels like too tough a description/parody of a frightening country to not want a firm sense of the credentials of the writer -- which I rather presume he has, given the broad positive critical response to the novel. But what are they? For me, the book cover flap has raised questions rather than answered them.

Lily wrote: "My question in trying to take this on has become who is Adam Johnson and what knowledge/experience puts him in a place to write this stuff..."

I guess that depends a lot on whether you come at this book as a realistic portrayal of North Korea or as a piece of fiction that happens to use a lot of real world references. I'm coming to this book knowing nothing about it or Johnson (other than knowing it won a Pulitzer). I tend to look up all that stuff after I've read the book, but it has made me want to know how realistic this could be, which led me to looking up human rights reports on NK.

My copy is a library book and I can't read any of the Johnson propaganda on the back since it's covered with library stickers and such ;)

A lot of Johnson's portrayal of the state does read like a twisted version of the North Korean central news agency.

Marc wrote: "I guess that depends a lot on whether you come at this book as a realistic portrayal of North Korea or as a piece of fiction that happens to use a lot of real world references. I'm coming to this book knowing nothing about it or Johnson (other than knowing it won a Pulitzer). ..."

Sometimes I don't care either. But on this one, given both the prize level (and with the Pulitzer from basically a journalistic/liberal-leaning source), I am curious about the possible political agenda behind both the content and the high visibility being given this book. One may not be able to figure that out, but I can't think of a parallel book experience I've encountered. (The closest that comes to mind at the moment might be writings by emigres out of Soviet Russia.) And, yes, I haven't read far yet, but scanning the ending (not an unusual tactic for me, especially when I am not sure whether I want to keep reading or not) did as much as anything to raise antennae for me.

A little later: This, including its links, has been the most insightful so far:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/ap...

Lily wrote: "I am curious about the possible political agenda behind both the content and the high visibility being given this book...."

Sounds like a healthy skepticism we should probably all keep in the back of our minds while reading this :)

(I am fascinated by it on a purely literary level.)

There was an Italian movie from about 15 years ago called "Life Is Beautiful" about a father who protects his son inside a Nazi Concentration Camp by convincing them they were just on a sort of adventure together. Objectively, it was very well done, but it got a lot of criticism that it minimized the holocaust to imply that a kid could be tricked into thinking it was just a game so he wouldn't be scared.

That how I feel a little about the portrayal of North Korea. Even with all the horrors shown, I feel a little like it's too easy to fame the system like Jun Do does.

Matthew wrote: "That how I feel a little about the portrayal of North Korea. Even with all the horrors shown, I feel a little like it's too easy to fame [frame?] the system like Jun Do does. ..."

Still doing the digging I should have done before voting to read this novel (don't resent the small $x spent on buying a sale copy at B&N, but do care about the time to be spent reading). Found these two tidbits the past few minutes: a self-proclaimed ex-pat (from North Korea, I presume) suggests Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty by Bradley K. Martin. He does imply this book was one of Johnson's sources, but holds that Martin provides the better insights to NK as a culture and nation. Another reviewer suggests Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick, but again with questions (from others) about the trustworthiness of author interpretations (versus observation).

So, I shall probably continue to dabble with OMS over the month -- I am curious. And thank the rest of you for the discussions here. I'll dip in if/when....

I think maybe Matthew meant "game the system."

Marc wrote: "I'll stand firm and say at no point (at least, up to pg. 280) is he the narrator (see narrative point of view). He's definitely the main character. There seem to be 3 modes of narration: 1) the anonymous narrator telling us the bulk of the story (third person); 2) the interrogator from Part II (first person); and, 3) those intermittent radio announcements (voice of the state? first person)"

Marc (and Terry) - I was reading an interview of author Bill Roorbach in the paper this morning and there is a question and answer that is very on point with our discussion about who is the narrator that I thought you, and others, might find of interest. I've not read the book that the Q&A are about, as it was just released, so do not know if that narrator/character is in a similar situation but Roorbach's discussion of narrator/character is very similar to Terry's comment at message 19, including the "over the shoulder description!" Here is a link to the article -- http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index.....

I will be going to the official publication kick off next Tuesday and perhaps will have a chance to ask the author a question about this "free indirect style" of third person narrative that feels (to some of us) as if it is the character narrating!

There is much related to Lily's concern in the "Getting Started" thread. In looking at the second of the books Lily refers to above in message 29, I found a reference to this rather chilling article in one of the reviews -- http://bigstory.ap.org/article/north-....

Yes, "game the system." Like whenever something bad happens on the boat, they all know exactly what to say so that they all become heroes. The one part that seemed anomalous was when they came back from Texas and got their stories in line, and then suddenly scrambled to change it and got sent to jail anyway.

I wasn't clear on what went wrong -- or, if it was just bad luck, how their luck could have lasted that long.

Linda wrote: "I was reading an interview of author Bill Roorbach in the paper this morning and there is a question and answer that is very on point with our discussion about who is the narrator that I thought you, and others, might find of interest...."

Wow--talk about timing! This is great, Linda. Thank you.

I think the main thing that "went wrong" on the trip to Texas was that they did not get back the equipment the Dear Leader wanted back. The characters all have a strong understanding that telling the truth can get them in trouble, or sent to a labor camp, or worse, so they try to frame stories in a way that will be more acceptable to leadership. On the Junma, they don't start out trying to make anyone a hero. They are trying to figure out a way they can explain the loss of the portraits without being held responsible for the loss. Their first thought is to stage another fire. Then Jun Do comes up with the idea of making the second mate a hero. Jun Do does seem to have a real talent for creating and selling stories, and he does use it to "game the system" to stay alive. I think this idea of creating and selling stories is part of a larger theme in the book, about how our lives shape our stories and how our stories shape our lives, both as individuals and as a culture. This is something I would like to discuss more in the spoiler thread, when I have had more time to think about it.

Casceil wrote: "I think this idea of creating and selling stories is part of a larger theme in the book, about how our lives shape our stories and how our stories shape our lives, both as individuals and as a culture. This is something I would like to discuss more in the spoiler thread, when I have had more time to think about it. "

I agree Casceil that the creating and selling stories is theme in this book and something we should explore in the spoiler thread.

I have enjoyed reading the discussion so far. I am late to the party and just finished Part I last night. Two minor points that raised questions for me were:

1) the belief on the part of NK that they won the war, and the opposite belief of the U.S. and SK that SK won the war. I have always thought that it was a stalemate as evidenced by the existence of a divided Korea.

2) the fact that Jun Do is allowed to keep his seemingly 'broken' camera. I'm curious about it's role in the upcoming story.

Matthew wrote: "There was an Italian movie from about 15 years ago called "Life Is Beautiful" about a father who protects his son inside a Nazi Concentration Camp by convincing them they were just on a sort of adv..."

I really like this analogy and am going to keep it in mind as I read further.

I have just started reading and am reminded of the book Catch22 in that the characters are always finding convoluted ways to get around the rules.

By the way there are two Lindas on here so I'll change my name to LindaD

It also reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut in some of the absurd moments.

And, actually, there are 3 of us 'Linda's'. I thought I had changed my user name yesterday, but apparently not. I'm still new to Goodreads.

B'burg Linda wrote: "It also reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut in some of the absurd moments.

And, actually, there are 3 of us 'Linda's'. I thought I had changed my user name yesterday, but apparently not. I'm still new t..."

I changed mine to LindaNutmegger. We'll see if it shows up

Linda wrote: "B'burg Linda wrote: "It also reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut in some of the absurd moments.

And, actually, there are 3 of us 'Linda's'. I thought I had changed my user name yesterday, but apparently..."

I changed mine months ago to Linda S., but for some reason, GR doesn't always show it that way. I'm the one without a picture who's moderating this discussion!

Lily comments about the high visibility of the book and it's possible political agenda. In so doing, she gets to the heart of what I was (much less successfully, as usual) trying to express when I noted concerns about the accuracy of the work as a piece of contemporary historical fiction. Ultimately, although the book was on so many levels superb, I put it down. I was feeling manipulated for a political end, and I didn't like the feeling.

Karen wrote: "Lily comments about the high visibility of the book and it's possible political agenda. In so doing, she gets to the heart of what I was (much less successfully, as usual) trying to express when I..."

I wonder Karen if you could elaborate on what you thought was the political agenda being expressed by the author and what lead you to that conclusion?

On the point of the author's possible political agenda in his portrayal of N. Korea, I read an interview in which he stated he did not include "horrors" of the life there gratuitously and in fact toned them down in service to the plot. Each of the disgusting, outrageous or barbaric acts in the book was actually based on "real life" examples that came to light from news stories or debriefings of defectors, released captives, etc. To what extent those sources are accurate, however, is unclear.

Here's a statement from an interview to NPR on 23 April 2013:
JOHNSON: The State Department has an incredible list of Google maps of all the gulags on its website. Seeing the satellite images of the huge barracks and the prison mines and the graveyards and the execution yards is just terrifying. Reading about the amputations and forced abortions, it filled my mind with darkness for a year. And honestly, I tried to prevent too much of that dark reality from seeping into the book because I didn't want to outweigh the humanness of my characters.