Meta-turtles

Epigraphs - TFIOS vs. TATWD

Due to the fact that I was writing my final exams, I was unable to post all the things I had planned to post. That did not mean I stopped thinking about this novel! I thought one of the ways I could take study breaks was by reading reviews of John Green's newest novel, Turtles All The Way Down. Most of the reviews made me happy to read. It was so amazing to see the different positive experiences people had while reading the novel! The few negative ones, however, caught my attention (which is to be expected, seeing that people remember negative experiences more vividly than positive experiences - if you didn't know this look up the negativity bias).

I quickly realized that there were a few things most of the reviews had in common. In this post, I will be discussing three of them: • This novel was boring. Nothing happened. • The side story/subplot was inane and nonsensical. • The other characters, like Aza's mom and Daisy, were not likeable.

Nothing happened. It was so boring.

This critique is one of the ones I find to be the most valid. Not that I agree that it was boring - I felt as if I had gone on an emotional journey and a half! But.

But.

The blurb was a lie.

The opening sentence of the blurb states:

"Sixteen-year-old Aza never intended to pursue the mystery of fugitive billionaire Russell Pickett, but there's a hundred-thousand-dollar reward at stake and her Best and Most Fearless Friend, Daisy, is eager to investigate."

The first paragraph promises excitement. Was I the only one who expected a detective story upon reading the blurb? The second paragraph acknowledges that Aza is "living within the ever-tightening spiral of her own thoughts." However, I thought mental illness would be simply a theme in the novel - I did not expect the whole plot to be centred around it.

I loved that the novel turned out to be a psychological portrait of a sixteen-year-old, instead of a detailed mystery novel of sleuthing and clueing. But for those who wanted to read crime fiction, it would have been disappointing, and I can sympathize with that.

The subplot was inane and nonsensical.

This is a critique I can relate to a little bit less. Firstly, It's fiction. Aza even reminds us of this in the opening sentence of the novel! If it seems far-fetched, or beyond belief, it's because it's fiction.

Secondly, the point of a subplot is to strengthen the main plot. Granted, many readers expected the main plot to be about "fugitive billionaire Russell Pickett," which turned out to be the subplot to Aza's journey of navigating different relationships while trying to cope with OCD. This does not mean, however, that the subplot detracted from the main plot - even if they seem to be wildly unrelated. Two of the main themes of the novel are what it means to lose a parent, and the effects of having/not having wealth. The "exaggerated" subplot allows John Green to explore both of these themes to a greater extent (more on this will appear in a next blog post). Even though the mystery aspect of the novel seems to have been neglected, I believe this was a deliberate move: Aza is stuck in her spirals to such an extent that she is unable to give more of her energy to external factors such as the disappearance of Davis's dad. Instead, she is trying to traverse her internal mindscape, and not be drowned in the ever-tightening spirals.

Daisy and Aza's mom weren't likeable.

People seem to have mixed feelings about Daisy from the beginning. For those who don't get fanfiction or fandoms, this is hundred percent understandable. What is not acceptable, however, is when people don't like Daisy because she is ignorant about the reality of living with mental illnesses.

Listen up. If you're a guy who has a girl for a friend it doesn't automatically mean you're not sexist. If you're white and you have a black friend, it doesn't mean you're not racist. If you have a friend who has a mental illness it doesn't mean you're not prejudiced to mental illnesses.

It's difficult to live with mental illness. And it's not always easy to be patient with a friend who has mental illness. This is a reality. John Green illustrates this beautifully in chapter 18 of Turtles All The Way Down. Aza defends her not having read Daisy's fanfictions before by saying that Daisy had never asked her to, which Daisy quickly responds to by saying she had, multiple times. Daisy then says the words which sound extremely harsh, but is understandable (albeit inexcusable) in her context:

You could take three seconds away from your nonstop f****** contemplation of yourself to think about other people's interests.

Aza thinks to herself that she knows she is a bad friend sometimes. But she literally can't help it. Daisy was being cruelly honest, but honest nonetheless about the realities of having a friend with mental illness. It was insensitive to suggest that Aza does it on purpose - she doesn't. She feels like she has no control of her thoughts at this point, what else is she to do? That doesn't mean 

Daisy is not allowed to feel somehow cheated by this. Being realistic about mental illness and how that affects friendships and relationships does not make her unlikeable.

Similarly, people are annoyed that Aza's mom does not see that she is not helping Aza when she hovers and tries to make things better. Does this make her an unlikeable character?? It really shouldn't. Again, it is showcasing the realities. I have had a few friends who had depression, and none of their parents knew how to be helpful, and in some cases did more harm than good. Even if they did have good intentions.

In an interview with radio host Terry Gross, John Green explained that one of the reasons why he chose this Schopenhauer quote specifically is that it links to his "experience of being a person." For him, not being able to define his own will, having no control over his own thoughts, raises the question of who exactly he is. If he is not the sovereign (he actually uses this term) of his consciousness, then who is? What is?

Thoughts on the Opening Sentence of Turtles All The Way Down

“At the time I first realized I might be fictional…” These 10 words captured my imagination to such an extent that I was unable to finish the rest of the first sentence of the novel for a few minutes. Although the Schopenhauer quote had implied that the illusion of free will would be a recurring theme in Turtles All The Way Down, I was unprepared for it to be stated so blatantly in the opening…

Did you know that

Goodreads lists 7 other books entitled Turtles All the Way Down. 

The phrase has been used by scientists, philosophers, and various authorities on religion alike.

"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

- Arthur Schopenhauer

As is the case with many German philosophers, a first reading of the quote will sound profoundly intellectual, deeply philosophical… and utterly unintelligible. Fortunately, when it's put into simpler and less abstract language, it becomes much easier to understand:

"A man is free to do whatever he wants, but he is not free to choose what he wants."

- Arthur Schopenhauer à la Natasha.

It is vitally important to understand this quote before attempting to read the rest of John Green’s Turtles All the Way Down. Epigraphs (that is what this quote is called in literary studies) are placed at the beginnings of novels or chapters for a reason. It functions as a preview of what’s to come – an appetizer, a trailer, an introduction – without which you will definitely miss out on some of the underlying themes and metaphors of the text. The Greek etymology of the word epigraph is ἐπὶ (on) and γράφω (to write), meaning to write on. When John Green makes us read this quote before we are allowed to read the first sentence, he is essentially telling us what he will be writing about.

In an interview with radio host Terry Gross, John Green explained that one of the reasons why he chose this Schopenhauer quote specifically is that it links to his "experience of being a person." For him, not being able to define his own will, having no control over his own thoughts, raises the question of who exactly he is. If he is not the sovereign (he actually uses this term) of his consciousness, then who is? What is?

This question, 'Who am I?', is ultimately a different way of phrasing the question 'What does it mean to be human?’ This links to the question ‘What does it mean to be in the world?’ which links to the question of ‘what is the world’ which takes us to the question of ‘what is real?’, and so we can continue in a never-ending thought-spiral of questions into a depth of existentialist despair. Luckily, people have been struggling with these questions for thousands of years and we don’t have to come up with our own answers from scratch. What is the purpose of Humanities if not to sift through all the various answers and put together new ones?

But let’s return to Schopenhauer before we get carried away.

Schopenhauer used the word ‘Will’ quite a lot. (Note that ‘Will’ does not only refer to wanting though. It can also be thought of as ‘Force’ or ‘Energy’). Schopenhauer believed that Will came before anything else – before existence, before thinking, before asking the question ‘Who am I?’ there is Will. This Will is not only the foundation of us as human people, but the foundation of everything (animals too – he was quite the animal rights activist).  Most importantly, Will is not rational or intellectual – thus we cannot choose or control it with our thoughts.

This is not to say that Will controls us – we are still in charge of our bodies. In fact, Schopenhauer said that “as individuals, we are the anguished products of our own epistemological making.” Basically, life sucks, we and the world are always eternally frustrated, and there is no point to anything. This suffering can be overcome though, if we acknowledge that in reality the world is a dark and dreary place. Then we can set out to encounter the beautiful, and contemplate the aesthetic, and start practising asceticism (self-denial).