I found myself continuously surprised as I was reading the
first two chapters. For example,
On “we weren’t close” on page 11:
Without the caption, I
would assume Art and his father are the best of friends. Both of their
expressions are of such happiness and their arms are all open for an embrace.
It’s not only that Art’s father says that “[he] was worried”, but more so that
he was willing to say it. Not only does he sound like a caring father that has
a strong relationship with his son, but the fact that he was willing to admit
anything that “goes against” the pride of a man means a lot. When I studied the
art after reading the text, it was hard for me to put them together in my head.
This got me thinking: Is
art ever really telling from experience? It’s obvious that his
illustrations and secondhand storytelling is not a direct source from the
author himself. He is telling a story of a story—there is always room for error
in this equation. However, even in the scenes where Art is in conversation with
his father, the illustrations are not a direct translation from his memories.
Art illustrates the scenes from an omniscient viewpoint. In reality, Art can
only see so much of the room, his father, and barely anything of himself. Art
is inferring his own expressions, and probably many of the intermediate actions
of his father which don’t hold much significance in real life but could
probably be analyzed down to the core in an 11 AP class. Art was probably busy
jotting down notes while his father was telling his story while counting his
pills or biking. We must remember while reading this novel that the text is
told in first person, but the illustrations are not.
