I wish she hadn't turned Longman into such a simple villian. She seems to be hinting that Oppenheimer was a simple villian instead of a complex man. Someone was going to father or mother the first A-bomb and some country was going to be the first to use it. When the bomb was being developed the Axis powers were still a serious threat (and Germany wanted an A-Bomb) and if they had coordinated and planned better with each other WWII could have ended much differently. I think it's because the Allies won the war so decsively that it allows us to demonize the bomb and the people who developed it. There is a theory that if the German's hadn't wasted so much energy, materials and human power developing subs, rockets and fighting the Soviet Union they could have developed the A-Bomb before we did. Imagine Nazi Germany with A-Bombs, if you think they were destructive without it, I'd say they would have been far more with it. I do like the more traditional form of the novel, it's easier to follow and it saves paper and trees.

MAUVE DESERT was as much about the process of translation as it was about the actual narrative. I greatly enjoyed how Brossard allows for the reader to see how translating a book occurs while at the same time making the act of translation an integral part of the novel.

Maude Laures documents her process of translating the work of Laure Angstelle into her own work. The "mots de Laure" becomes the work of the translator. Through translation Maude Laures is essentially recreating Angstelle's original work and becomes a new author in her own right. I found fascinating the way in which the translator makes notes on the characters, dimensions, places and things, and even a self-portrait of herself in the act of translation while asking Laure Angstelle questions of her work in a hypothetical situation.

The book is similar to The Handmaid's Tale in the sense that it falls under the "mise-en-abime" category wherein one sees a book within a book (within a book). The whole of the text is MD by NB. Inside MD is contained MD by LA, A Book To Translate written in the third person, and the final translation is Mauve the Horizon by ML. The most compelling aspect to the translation remains that Maude Laures is not translating languages in the conventional sense, but rather translating the perceptions of Laure Angstelle.

I really enjoyed this book after the class had a chance to sit down and analyze its content.

P.M. THanks for the Brossard article. The "I am everywhere I am" quote (what a scary premise) is one that says take me & use me-it's just so pithy & so quotable. Anyway, about her Mauve Desert. My first reading left me baffled. Second, I thought, what is his disjointed piece of work. Thirdly, I now tossed a coin to choose - The Trinity or The Three Stooges! The class discussion came just in time. I did,from the beginning, understand the individuals & even considered the connection of Arizona, desert, smart guy with briefcase formulas. I simply was not able to put them all together by means of logial thinking. Isn't education an eye opener

I didn't love Mauve Desert but I of course can't leave the book without giving Brossard due credit. She accomplished the same remarkable feat as Atwood had in the Handmaid's Tale, revealing a book within a book within a book. While I had some difficulties with the content of Mauve Desert, Maude Laures translates Laure Angstelle's work and creates a much easier to read and arguably more interesting perspective of the content-- particularly with the characters. After reading Laures's translation, it became much easier for me to distinguish the characters' separate roles. I enjoyed the photographs as well, which again depicted the related stories, but in distinguishable ways.

Although I found this book by far the oddest we've read all semester, the content of the writing grew from simple to beautiful.

I won't lie - I didn't finish this book. I got about half way through before I had to stop and start Monkey Beach to be on schedule. Mauve Desert didn't hold my attention at all, especially the first section. It was very poetic, which was frustrating for me because it just distracted me from what was actually going on in the story. The second section started the same way, and I found myself skipping parts just to get to something valuable (to me).

But the most interesting part of what I read was Longman. We talked briefly about him in class, but I didn't get a lot out of it, especially because I have a profound lack of historical knowledge. I distinctly remember one part where it said "So longman..." which I took as a play on the saying "so long." It seemed like there was a lot of playing with the name, which is one thing I can definitely appreciate. But like I said, I still don't know very much about him.

I really enjoyed this book. Although the untraditional format was a bit demanding, I found myself drawn to it as I struggled to understand. When I finally finished the book, I went back to read it again, and thats when I really began to understand what was going on. I would suggest looking over it again to anyone who struggled with it. Its much better the second time around.

The best part of the book for me was the character Melanie. She was so exciting to me because she vicariously filled some of my life's desires. She was a very wild girl but notably mature and confident considering her age, and that made her easier to relate with. Because of this mature narration she was articulate enough for me to take her thoughts seriously which allowed me to really see things from her perspective. If she hadn't been so poetic I might have dismissed her cynicism for typical youth rebellion, but instead I saw principle and evidence in her philosophy. Melanie's confidence in her perspective comes through especially well when she contrasts it with that of her mother in this powerful quote:

"What becomes knotted in the heart is knotted witih the silence of others. You know, YOUR VOICE, your beautiful voice never really spoke to me. Your voice just superimposed itself on the mediocrity which in this Motel precludes all hope."

Ah...The Mauve Desert. I did not really enjoy this book. I feel that if I had more time to read it thoroughly, then I may have been able to enjoy it, but I feel that this book cannot fully be understood given a week to read it. Even though we are given a week, it really boils down to a few days to read it because of all the other work we have to do. I want to try and read it again during the summer when I have time, but I was so excited to read Monkey Beach that I sort of just gave up on the Mauve Desert and trying to make sense of it all. However, I really did appreciate the layout of the novel. I have never read a book that was set up the way this one was, written in different sections as to elude to different, physcal, novels. This format may have actually been the cause of my confusion, but it was still interestng to wonder what made Brossard decide to write it in the way that she did. I feel that once I read the novel again, and not just rush through it, the format may actually help me understand the characters and plot better. But the first time around, it wasn't much help. My favorite part of this style of how Brossard put the book together was the part where Longman has his own "file" filled with pictures. I feel that this really allowed the reader to look deeper into the character and the story itself. I love novels with pictures in them, which you don't find very often (hardly ever, actually). And though the pictures may not have pertained as much to the story as I would have liked them to, they still added to the mystery of everything, and helped to better paint a picture in my head as to what was going on. I think this is why I really love when books get made into movies. Many people will not agree with me on this, but movies that are made from books I have read is the best thing ever! I can only do so much myself to bring the story and the characters to life. But when I have a visual,whether it be in the form of pictures, audio, or (my favorite!) a movie, it opens this whole new realm of the book for me. I can SEE how the characters really interact, how they develop, how they speak their words. Though I didn't get such a great sensation from the longman file (the pictures) as I would if it had been made into a movie, it was still very intriguing. I also found the "Dimenstions" section of the book, and the beautifully written explainations of dawn, and light, and reality, etc., really fascinating. My favorite part of this section is when she is describing dawn in the passage "The dawn of the incense ceremony. Dawn is summer, dawn is winter. Dawn on exam days. Jet-lag dawn when thinking hallucinates, when memory coagulates like a substance foreign to the body and eyes slowly part their lashes upon all-architecture cities in the violated, baroque morning" (pg, 139). When taken away from the novel, it becomes poetry to me. I will give that to Brossard, though her novel was not a favorite of mine, she really can write quite beautifully. I believe that even if the story of a novel may not be something that appeals to me, if it is written in such a way that really makes the text sound beautiful, meaningful, then why not give it a shot?

The thing that I found most interesting about Mauve Desert was the fact that it has several distinct parts. It was truthfully unlike any book that I had ever read. I particularly enjoyed how your are given the raw version of the novel at the very beginning and then Brossard makes her own translator named Maude Laures who then breaks down each aspect of the raw version, and you get to see each of these breakdowns which include, scenes, dimensions, characters, and things. It is in this way that we as readers become more and more intrigued by the whole story and the whole breakdown of the novel itself. we also at the same time have the translator telling us things about her life as well throughout the breakdown section. What I found to be the most interesting aspect of the novel was the translated version at the end. Not because it was the translated version and it made more sense, but what I found interesting was that I enjoyed the raw version at the beginning more then the translated simplified version. Overall, I thought that the scenes section was particularly interesting because you got to hear some more dialogue among the characters themselves. I found the section about Angela Parkins talking to her murderer to be particularly captivating. I can truthfully say that I have never read such an interesting book and I think I will read it again, maybe this time starting at the back.

Mauve Desert was undeniably unlike any other text we have covered thus far. The self reflexive form (book within a book) made me feel as if I was next to Brossard as she dissects and reveals this truly unique piece. Through class discussion and reflection, I found I enjoyed the two opposite spectrums of Melanie, who likes to write and think about language, while Longman is more objective and enjoys play on numbers. Like Melanie, the translation uses language to create ambiguity rather than to lessen it.
Although I might not have picked this book out to read for pleasure, I felt I developed a deeper knowledge about how bias translations can be and the affect that they have on the reader.

I thought the most interesting aspect of Mauve Desert was definitely the style of writing and the set up of the book. I'm not surprised that Nicole Brossard considers herself an experimental writer, between the multiple books, the multiple stories, the multiple "authors," and the collection of photographs in the middle, I wouldn't consider this book anything besides experimental. The style was intriguing, because it shifts throughout, moving from narrative, to abstract, to contemplative. Mauve Desert was certainly a different kind of read.

Mauve Desert was a difficult book because of the way that it was layered. However, I am a fan of the untraditional format when it comes to novels. I thin k that it brings a new and exciting element to the story, even if the story is new and exciting enough.

I did enjoy the character Melanie. She was crazy and yet cool. She reminded me of several people in my life, which is why I think I was drawn to her. Especially when you add in the relationship with her mother- I think that relationship presents a dynamic that is more common then people might want to believe.

Brossard uses the idea of the desert to imply large metaphoric truths about the story, which is something else that I liked. The desert is forever changing, but always remaining the same. I thought the title and the “authors” of each section were really thought out and related well to the overall theme.

I think that the most remarkable thing about this book was the focus on translation and the image that Paul put into our heads about a book within a book within a book etc... This novel was structured so differently from what I am used to. I felt that simply digesting the literature was a task in itself, but I felt that it was completely worth it.
I personally leaned towards Melanie here, finding more pleasure in the art of language and the ways that it can be used. However, the book in entirety was amazing and although it was a struggle I would (and actually have) recommend it to anyone, especially someone interesting in "literature" and "language".

I agree with Will. I found the unusual separation of parts in the book a pleasant departure from the usual chapter by chapter format that many contemporary books reflect. Brossard's unique style of writing seems appropriated by the unusual structure her book takes on; both seem to complement each other and thus seem appropriate. What I like most about Brossard is her elegant descriptive writing. She is a powerful and unique writer that forces her readers to think outside the box. Her poetic and thought invoking language make for a very interesting read: "The butterfly's wings are open, and the red and mauve and indigo gather around the body prolonging itself, white oval, into the face of a woman with a slow smile like in a Renaissance painting" (23). Passages like this are a great example of this. It is funny to me that while reading this passage I immediately thought of Mona Lisa and her slow smile. Although Brossard did not mention her name, it seems she certainly had it in mind. Nevertheless my connection to Mona Lisa is evidence of the power in her words. She forces her reader to think with little effort and shares life experiences and connections indirectly throughout her book. I think Kate S. brings up in interesting point when she says: "I felt that simply digesting the literature was a task in itself, but I felt that it was completely worth it." I think there is something to say about a writer who challenges the reader to depart from the norm and think outside the box. This is a book that speaks to literature and language and has a very "you get out what you put into it" kind of a feel. Brossard does make you work a little, and although this can be discouraging, this is not without reason: As Kate and other readers have pointed out, "it was well worth it."

I think the most interesting thing about Mauve Desert is the way Brossard plays with form. The separation of thee different novels contained in one novel is very unique. Brossard's use of form and manipulation of language causes the reader to be jolted into a position of constant interpreting and re-interpreting. Each of the three versions of the story cause the reader to question what they are reading. I like that Brossard is using for i. an avandt-garde way. She certainly does not make it easy for the reader.

I think that a close reading of Mauve Desert is the most rewarding of any book we’ve read thus far. There’s just so much going on. At first I didn’t like the author’s use of “big-concept words” like REALITY and HUMANITY and BEAUTY—it seemed cheesy and overdone, but then I remembered that Melanie is 15 years old, and when I was 15 years old I was very concerned with these same big concept words. They seem so important but so unknowable. As we age, we settle into analyzing and thinking about smaller details, or explore these concepts through smaller lenses, on smaller scales. Nobody, unless they’re under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, really sits down to figure out the truth of REALITY or HUMANITY as it is, as a word and a concept. We might study, say, a dream to think about reality. A particular film or period in history to think about humanity. We appreciate small scale beauty—a single freckle, a pebble on the ground, etc. It’s only when we’re this young and this thirsty for understanding that we really try to take on these concepts in their entirety.
As a piece of writing, I appreciated the way that Brossard deconstructed the traditional technique of story development. It’s all there: places and things, characters, scenes dimensions. All of these elements go into the traditional formula for story writing, but instead of weaving them together, Brossard examines them individually. This is characteristic of the self-reflexive, postmodern style that she writes in. Normally, on a first read, we wouldn’t think: Ok, here’s Melanie and she’s a character. Here’s the desert and it’s a place. Here’s a revolver and it’s a thing. Here’s the word “dawn,” and this is a dimension. Here’s a bit of dialogue happening, that’s a scene. All of this is sewn together so that you’re unaware of the seams. We’re not thinking of it as a piece of writing or a piece of fiction because we’re not thinking about the elements that make up fiction writing while we’re reading it. We’re thinking about what’s going on in the story. Brossard’s forcing you to recognize it as such.
It’s also self-reflexive in its exploration of writing and translation. Maude Laures translates Laure Angstelle’s work, but it seems that the two works are written in the same language. This speaks to the idea that every representation of experience is foreign coming from the perspective of the one who did not have the experience. It’s interesting to be reading this book that explores the issues of translation…in translation. Originally written in French, I found one particular translation issue that’s worth talking about. I mentioned it in my essay, but I think that it’s really interesting: As English speakers, nobody seemed to know what to make of the last line, “I cannot get close to any you.” I think we were all just about to chalk it up to that crazy Brossard and her ultra-poetics. However, in the original French version, this line reads, “Je ne peux pas tutoyer personne.” In French, there are two different ways of saying “you;” tu and vous. One uses tu to address someone with whom they are familiar, who they know well, and vous to address a stranger or superior, or to be polite. The verb tutoyer means to use tu in addressing someone. Thus, “Je ne peux pas tutoyer personne,” or “I cannot get close to any you,” indicates Mélanie’s isolation. She does not feel close enough to any living person to call them tu.

I really think there is a difference between 'close reading' and the effort required to make it through Mauve Desert with a semblance of understanding. I enjoyed the touches of extremely clever writing; "Where I grew up women would put freedom on their cheeks: it smelled like incense, sleek skin, medicinal, while the men got off a good shot of freedom at everything that moved"(29). However, the drops of attention-grabbing phrasing across the page cannot compensate for the filler in-between. I think in theory the structure (Mauve Desert - A book to Translate - Mauve, The Horizon) was clever, but I felt no reward from Mauve, The Horizon when I finished it. The intricacies that I expected to unraveled ended up being nothing interesting.

I don't have much else to say about Mauve Desert. One thing I wondered was if anyone knew of a different story that had a story and a re-telling in the same book. The concept was interesting to me, but Mauve Desert just didn't deliver.

Mauve Desert first struck me as one of those books that had way too much deep meaning behind its words, but interestingly enough the structure of the three texts compiled together made the book easier to understand in terms of what the author (or authors I guess I should say) was trying to accomplish. It’s not that as a reader ‘I found it to be meaningful and provocative’ in the case of plot or character structure, but rather I thought it to be impressive in its ability to put forth a mission (I think would be the right word to describe it) between the original author, its translator, the translator’s version of the original work, and then a translation of the translator’s translation to get the original author’s story out into the world. We have all tried to put someone else’s words into our own, but creating meaning out of chicken scratch and paper, while analyzing the angles in which you would perceive the story, and then rewriting the original chicken scratch into a developed, more understandable version is no easy task. I would have to assume that most people who knew what this author was trying to accomplish before it was published told her she was crazy. Still and yet, Mauve Desert was enjoyable once I started going back to find the answers to the questions immediately popping into my head after finishing it first time through. Even then I didn’t get everything, but I can at least appreciate the book for what it was, and to the author’s it was much more than what I saw as a challenge.

I definitely felt the most striking aspect of Mauve Desert was Brossards use of language to demonstrate how it creates ambiguity instead of destroying it. When looking at Mauve Desert by Laure ANgstelle and Mauve the Horizon the translation by Maude Laures one sees how language, even just by one word can completely change the meaning and substance of a story being told. Even the titles themselves imply complete different things with just the change of one word. Angstelle draws to mind the picture of a desert called Mauve as if the sand could take on that purply hue. Laures “Mauve the Horizon” draws to mind the sky at dusk and completely deserts any association with a desert whatsoever. It could be a Mauve Horizon in the mountains, in the arctic, or even in some suburbia for all the reader knows. On pg two of Mauve Desert the narrator says “ and “ I would leave with my mother yelling sharp words at me which would get lost in the parking lot dust”. On pg 2 of Mauve the Horizon Laures translates this phrase to “I would leave in spite of the worried words cried out by my mother which would land in the parking lot dust.” Laures’ “translation” of Angstelle’s words is less of a literal translation and more of a translation of viewpoint. In former quote, the mother is described in a way that makes her seem irate and frustrated at her daughter for taking the car. In the latter quote, it would seem that the mother isn’t frustrated or annoyed that her daughter took her car, but just worried about her safety. These are two completely different expressions of emotion and in translation one is lost and another is formed.

Although I appreciate Mauve Desert for its layered and innovative form, as a whole I did not enjoy the book too much. I guess I am a little to adapted to the traditional form of a novel and when trying to reach outside of that struggle more than I would like to in order for me to find a novel enjoyable. Wow was that last sentence a mumbled piece of a run on……

also just wanted ot post the link to this blog that I like to read called Eyewear. Its subject matter encompasses poetry, and some politcal culture. It features alot of great canadian poets and he did a great post on Brossard

http://toddswift.blogspot.com/