Since I last posted, I finished the book. I think if was great how Bryson started to talk about some of the more unfortunate events that occurred. For most if the book he is just raving about how wonderful Australia is, how delightful the people are, and occasionally conveys his confusion about Australian history, politics, and sports. But in this last section he describes parts of his trip that were not so great. His waiters were rude, he got terribly sunburned, stuck in a torrential rainstorm, and struggled to find a hotel room.
Overalls this was an interesting book and I learned a lot about Australia. However, I am still thinking about what his point was. It seems like he loved Australia and wants to share all of its mysteries, but why? I've concluded that his main purpose is to entertain the reader, but secondly is to simply keep people informed. He often writes that big news in Australia never gets much coverage. He also stresses the point that the country is teeming with all kinds of species:rare, unidentified, prehistoric, poisonous, endangered, even ones that are still unknown to the world. I think I ultimately Bryson wants to convey the idea that Australia should not be overlooked; it is a thriving country rich in history, full of mystery, and teeming with life. Truly a very interesting place, to say the least.
As to why Bryson had to spend an entire book telling me that, I wish there was some variance. The structure and even the plot became predictable. It became a bit monotonous after a while of him waking up, driving through miles of arid desert, finding some roadside attraction, making it to the next town, spend the evening in a bar, and crashing for the night in some hotel. Then the next day would be more or less the same. The things he did and saw were interesting, I just wish he could have switched up the way in which he presented them.
I think reading a book like this poses an interesting conflict, growing up we are taught that every story needs to have an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. However when reading non-fiction, we often learn that life isn't always organized in a nice five-part plot. But this doesn't mean we don't get anything out of the writing, you may not have gotten a suspenseful or exciting story out of this book, but you did learn about a side of Australia you may not have seen otherwise, as Bryson points out, it doesn't get much coverage. Although, it does seem that he attempted to bring some convention to his writing by putting the more problematic parts of his journey towards the end. I don't think that a book necessarily needs a conventional plot to be good, so if you really did think Bryson's writing was predictable and boring, perhaps he's just not the best writer. And that's okay, as readers it is essential to read a variety of texts, even of varying quality. Maybe since you've finished the book, you can pick fiction for your next independent reading choice to switch it up. If you want to stick with non-fiction, but want something more fast-paced and captivating, I highly recommend Midnight in Mexico by Alfred Corchado, he tells the story of Mexico while also telling the his story of being on the run from a very dangerous drug cartel--it never gets boring that's for sure!
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like he might have gotten bored writing the book, doesn't it. I think Asha has some points, but early in the story, he was funny, engaging and informative Did he write the bulk of the book as he traveled or did he write it later -- it just sounds like he ran out of the interesting parts and had to finish the book. Or maybe, you, Grace were ready to move on.
ReplyDelete