i found marlatte's book to be quite intriguing. her use of language was unique and really sought to challenge the reader. she was challenging the reader to both read and interpret the world differently. at the same time it was evident that she was challenging herself. i had a hard time deciding if i liked the book or not but i certainly thought it was interesting.

Overall, I had a hard time with the book, but after talking about it in class and breaking it down, I really respect the book and the language used. The language of the patriarchy was powerful and challenging, which is good, because the entire book was about challenge, so it makes sense that Marlatt would use challenging language. This book challenges and experiments with many things: feminity/masculinity, Ana/Ina, no capitals, etc. and that is what makes it interesting. There are many books about identity, but with Marlatt's language, she put a whole new spin on that topic. This book definately got me thinking about language and how one can experiment with it in a literary work. It offers another way for writers to be creative and challenging, which is refreshing. After looking at what Ana Historic is about and the language used in it, I can now say that I am less confused and really respect the book with what it tries to accomplish.

I had many mixed feelings about Ana Historic. I felt that is was more of a personal struggle within her, which may have been why it was confusing for outside readers. Her style of writing was very poetic and almost journalish. She didnt pay attention to details, like capitalizing, or confusing character relationships, or differentiating with character names, because i dont feel that she really cared. She might have felt that if her readers were able to take something away from the book, then she had accomplished something, but if not, no big deal. I love reading texts that challenge the typical and "correct" way of writing, it definitly makes for an interesting read.

Marlatt would go down in my mind as one of the most unique authors I have read. At this point, anyway. As everyone else has already noted, I will say again- the fact that I was supposed to be confused reading the novel is something to think about. I'm not sure if she was confusing herself, or purposely confusing the reader. It was maybe a little bit of both. I wonder what was going through her mind when writing it; I mean, isn't punctuation kind-of a have-to of writers? Especially if you want to come across as a sophisticated writer? As I kept reading, I drifted away from my initial thought: Why is she writing like this? This makes no sense! I really think she must have known that her readers would be challenged. How could they not be? This is certainly not a beach read in my opinion. It's actually the epitome of a real unique literary work; it must differ from everything else in style, theme, and everything in between. If it were in fact poetry, I'd probably be more accepting of the "novel". Poetry is often supposed to not make sense (more for what you want it to mean), but generally novels aren't so intricate and confusing and ... ahh!!

Being a history major i completely agree with the idea of its allure in Ana Historic. The clear cut answer and interest of the material gives it meaning. How Ana towards the end of the story does archival work for her husband shows wha the book had been leading up to. This topic also comes up numerous times in the Diviners

I realized that i wrote my contribution to the blog without even reading the question. The fact that she "breathes new life into old roots" i find that a good quote to put next to the language she uses. It seems as thought she took an awesome aspect to write about history and the way it works in her novel, its really something new and sort of fresh

Recently, I have been giving quite a lot of thought as to whether it is really even possible for a person to "breath life into old roots." It seems to me that an established system is not only hard to break down in terms of the language that it uses, but that it is very near impossible to challenge a system without in some particular way participating in that same system. (As in - you still HAVE to write in the language of the patriarchy)

Then again, I think about how some communities have taken back certain words that have been negative and turned them into new and postitive idenity points. Think: the word Bitch and how it can be used in a positive context rather than always a negative one.

With all of this said, I find Ana Historic to be a beautiful book filled with endless possibilities for discussion - and more than that it is a book that asks us to ask questions about ourselves and our own writing. For me - this is always the goal of any good writing - to produce more questions than answers and always ALWAYS confuse rather than control what we once though of as truth.

The author can choose any way in which he/she sees as an effective way in which to write their work. I think that in "Ana Historic" Marlatt chooses to write in a way which empowers women. A quote in the book struck me "When women are among themselves, they don't speak at all as they do in a mixed situation. That’s only an element of response" (107). Personally i think that this means that women speaks differently among themselves, to their friends rather than a authoritative male figure. I think that Marlatt chose to write in such a lax style to empower women, and “breathes new life into old roots“ by stretching the limits in terms of her writing and themes.

I found Ana Historic a bit confusing. The way in which the novel was writen often made it difficult for me to determine when the events were happening. While it was a unique way of writing about history, I had a great deal of trouble following the novel and became bored at times.

When I first began Ana Historic, I was reminded of ee cummings- note the no capitals. He liked to play with form as well and usually basic formal/structural elements were the easiest things to contort or manipulate. His poems became like puzzles to me because I had to regard these things as deliberate and artistic choices. Marlatt is like a poet, and like cummings in the way she uses language- however, unlike cummings which is open to numerous forms of interpretation, I think that more often than not, the way in which Marlatt plays with language is to serve a specific intellectual or social consciousness kind of purpose.
Marlatt used the language of the patriarchy, but somehow reversed it and was able to show an ugly side to the patriarchy, and ugliness producedby many things, but by their language in particular. I think her criticism of the patriarchal tongue is most vividly portrayed in her discussion of adolescent girls, and how in their naivete, and let's face it, pre-teen stupidity, even they adopted the language of the patriarchy in order to be catty and gossip about each other. It's definitely a new way of looking at this way of speaking....

I had somewhat of a difficult time at first when reading "Ana Historic," but as I read more and we discussed Marlatt's use of language and disection of language, I found the book to be an easier read. I found the prosey kind of style of the book to be interesting as well as tough to follow in certain parts. I really enjoyed Marlatt's disection of certain words (for example part where she looks at the word vagina in its latin root as meaning a sheath for a sword, and how it is a feminine word even though it's latin root is masculine) as well as the lack of punctuation/capitalization etc. I feel as though a few more reads may be needed for me to gain a full understanding of the novel, but overall I found it to be a really great book.

Marlatt's take on language was a central theme within her book. All throughout she focused on the problems of using a language system that was so patriarchal. I felt that she also associated patriarchal with factual and structured events- she also suggest that an over emphasis on facts and events leave out important information- such as the stories. I've never really thought about the structure of our language system before reading Marlatt. Yet now, I understand why she believes that language can not capture everything-and agree with her, that it works like the fstop of a camera- only allowing a certain amount of light- and truth in.

I found that by reading Ana Historic, I had a hard time reading this book because the language was so challenging. I had to re-read several paragraphs to understand what was really going on within the passage. Yet, I really liked the way Marlatt challenged the reader by making the language of the novel so complex and difficult. I liked how there were no capitals, line breaks, the difference between Ana/Ina and how complex the characters were and how intertwined they were as well. Also, the notion of identity and sexuality and sexual preference was also quite intersting within this text. Overall, I felt that the language use was interesting on Marlatt's part and challenging for us, the reader.

I find it really interesting how Daphne Marlatt is able to take the language apart and as someone in class said she "pushes the boundaries" in this experimental text. Before reading and thinking about this book after class, I never put much thought into considering the different ways writers can use language. Unfortunately, I personally became too confused/frusterated with trying to specifically follow the plot line while reading this story; in retrospect, I see the use of Marlatt's language and the main themes of the story as most important.

I thought the language and structure in Ana Historic was really different and kinda frustrating to read. I think that this novel is like a "stream of consiousness" that Marlatt just seemed to unload as if it were a journal entry, paying no particular attention to format or grammar which is what made this difficult to read. I believe the main theme of this novel explores women and how we continue to fight for same rights as men.

(Better late than never!) I thought Marlatt definitely challenged the patriarchal frame of our language that I think at times we all either forget or take for granted. I thought there were many similarities between her work and that of Aquin's; they both seemingly attempted to create a new language of their own. Again, this brings the history vs. story debate to our attention, but knowing that we all have the ability to choose what we want to believe it at times was confusing, but entertaining to say the least. Now I can feel free and more comfortable in experimenting with language, not using capitals or punctuation marks, and being o.k. with the fact that a writen work can be unfinished and simultaneously complete.

Looking back at the semester, I think that Ana Historic stands out the most with reference to experimental writing. The lack of capitals, plot, etc. makes it an interesting novel because you do not focus on the actual plot of events, you focus on form and language. I have never read a book in which you examine those more so that the context, and its interesting. After finishing it, I kind of want to experiment with language and form in some writing, but it probably will not turn out as well as Marlatt's novel.