Love the title! It made me laugh ◡̈ I'm glad you seemed to like the novel! I too really enjoyed it for the myriad of reasons that you too seem to share. I would love to ask Agualusa to see why he chose a gecko to be the main narrator. And the plot itself is so very intriguing! I do also agree with the shortened attention span because of social media. I don't know if it was just me but I had some difficulty keeping track of the characters. Like who is who? Who is becoming who? That might just be me but it was a challenge for me to keep track. I do also agree with you that although the shorter chapters are a perk, it was sometimes difficult to understand the plot because there was a lot going on. To answer your question, my favourite character has to be Eulalio. I find is character to be so interesting: a gecko with the mind of a man.
Hi Bilal, I enjoyed reading your blog! As for your question, I found Angela the most interesting character. She was a simple character who was somewhat mysterious at the start of the novel, but by the conclusion, she had become the most complex character.
Hey Bilal, I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the book, I did too, I completely agree, it was a bit complicated to figure out where the story was headed in the begging but the ending also had me hooked. To answer your question, I think Ventura fascinated me the most, the way he was able to not just sell a past but create a whole new life for Gouveia was impressive. -Ximena Avendano Castillo
"How does one decide to narrate a story from a chameleon’s perspective, let alone a man who has been resurrected as a chameleon?"
As my lecture points out, he's not a chameleon!
Meanwhile, on Félix you say that "he is an important catalyst in the plot, but at some point, he close to vanishes from the narrative."
Really? I'm not sure about this... what about his relationships with Buchmann and Angela?
"I was enthralled by the end of this book, and for good reason!"
What was it about the end of the book that "enthralled" you? Indeed, it would be great if you could say a little more about the entire second half of the novel!
"As my lecture points out, he's not a chameleon!" I try not to watch the lectures until after I have written the blog, as to put down original opinions before hearing what others have to say.
"what about his relationships with Buchmann and Angela?" I understand what you mean, but I feel like his relationship with them was not as important as the fact that he brought them together for the books later events to unfold. I never felt like the spotlight was on Felix, rather he was invisible and accidental puppeteer of the narrative.
"What was it about the end of the book that "enthralled" you?" This is a fair point; I rushed the ending of this blog as I had gone a little over with my reflection on the characters. The drastic switch in tone is what interested me the most about the ending. It felt like the backdrop had suddenly collapsed and we were seeing things as they actually were. All these characters we had gotten to know revealing their true pasts, and Angela killing off Edmundo was in stark contrast to the story we were reading up to that point, in my personal opinion!
"I try not to watch the lectures until after I have written the blog, as to put down original opinions before hearing what others have to say."
This may be, but here the lecture merely recapitulates what the book says, and so helps to prevent you make mistakes... in the book, as well as the lecture, the creature is a gecko (a tiger gecko, to be exact), not a chameleon. And when you do get around to watching the lecture, you will probably find yourself informed about something that you almost certainly missed in the book, about the gecko's previous identity.
"accidental puppeteer of the narrative"
OK, this is definitely something worth expanding upon.
"It felt like the backdrop had suddenly collapsed and we were seeing things as they actually were."
Similarly this (and I also discuss the question at length in the lecture, as you will surely soon see) is worth further discussion. The whole question of what "things [. . .] actually [a]re," and whether that matters, is perhaps the core of the book, no?
Hi Bilal!
Love the title! It made me laugh ◡̈ I'm glad you seemed to like the novel! I too really enjoyed it for the myriad of reasons that you too seem to share. I would love to ask Agualusa to see why he chose a gecko to be the main narrator. And the plot itself is so very intriguing! I do also agree with the shortened attention span because of social media. I don't know if it was just me but I had some difficulty keeping track of the characters. Like who is who? Who is becoming who? That might just be me but it was a challenge for me to keep track. I do also agree with you that although the shorter chapters are a perk, it was sometimes difficult to understand the plot because there was a lot going on. To answer your question, my favourite character has to be Eulalio. I find is character to be so interesting: a gecko with the mind of a man.
Much love!
Hi Bilal, I enjoyed reading your blog! As for your question, I found Angela the most interesting character. She was a simple character who was somewhat mysterious at the start of the novel, but by the conclusion, she had become the most complex character.
Hey Bilal, I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the book, I did too, I completely agree, it was a bit complicated to figure out where the story was headed in the begging but the ending also had me hooked. To answer your question, I think Ventura fascinated me the most, the way he was able to not just sell a past but create a whole new life for Gouveia was impressive. -Ximena Avendano Castillo
"How does one decide to narrate a story from a chameleon’s perspective, let alone a man who has been resurrected as a chameleon?"
As my lecture points out, he's not a chameleon!
Meanwhile, on Félix you say that "he is an important catalyst in the plot, but at some point, he close to vanishes from the narrative."
Really? I'm not sure about this... what about his relationships with Buchmann and Angela?
"I was enthralled by the end of this book, and for good reason!"
What was it about the end of the book that "enthralled" you? Indeed, it would be great if you could say a little more about the entire second half of the novel!
Hi Professor!
"As my lecture points out, he's not a chameleon!" I try not to watch the lectures until after I have written the blog, as to put down original opinions before hearing what others have to say.
"what about his relationships with Buchmann and Angela?" I understand what you mean, but I feel like his relationship with them was not as important as the fact that he brought them together for the books later events to unfold. I never felt like the spotlight was on Felix, rather he was invisible and accidental puppeteer of the narrative.
"What was it about the end of the book that "enthralled" you?" This is a fair point; I rushed the ending of this blog as I had gone a little over with my reflection on the characters. The drastic switch in tone is what interested me the most about the ending. It felt like the backdrop had suddenly collapsed and we were seeing things as they actually were. All these characters we had gotten to know revealing their true pasts, and Angela killing off Edmundo was in stark contrast to the story we were reading up to that point, in my personal opinion!
Hope this offered more insight!
"I try not to watch the lectures until after I have written the blog, as to put down original opinions before hearing what others have to say."
This may be, but here the lecture merely recapitulates what the book says, and so helps to prevent you make mistakes... in the book, as well as the lecture, the creature is a gecko (a tiger gecko, to be exact), not a chameleon. And when you do get around to watching the lecture, you will probably find yourself informed about something that you almost certainly missed in the book, about the gecko's previous identity.
"accidental puppeteer of the narrative"
OK, this is definitely something worth expanding upon.
"It felt like the backdrop had suddenly collapsed and we were seeing things as they actually were."
Similarly this (and I also discuss the question at length in the lecture, as you will surely soon see) is worth further discussion. The whole question of what "things [. . .] actually [a]re," and whether that matters, is perhaps the core of the book, no?
But thanks for expanding further.