On Franny Choi’s “Body/Paragraph”

Posted by David Duhr in Book Club

Aug
28

So, guys, let’s chat about one of the most delightful stories I’ve ever been involved with. Franny Choi’s “Body/Paragraph” is very funny, eminently readable, and the graphics–a tactic which can often sink a story–work really well and flow seamlessly.

In my opinion, of course.

But what about in yours? Are the graphics/photos/images enhancing “Body/Paragraph” or getting in the way? How do you feel about graphics in general in short fiction?

I’d say this one can fairly be labeled “satire.” Would you call it Horatian (playful) or Juvenalian (full of contempt)? Can a satire be both? Like some of us have talked about before, must all satire come from a place of anger?

Character development can be a hurdle in stories such as this one. Does Choi do a good job of giving Caroline and Han-soo some depth? Or are they cartoonish characters? If the latter, does the story suffer because of it?

Thanks for joining us this week. Anything else you guys wanna talk about, let ‘er rip below.

2 Comments to “On Franny Choi’s “Body/Paragraph””

August 28, 2012 at 11:25 am
Sarah says:

At the risk of pissing into a perfectly lovely and empty pool, I’ll go first. Full disclosure: I didn’t really like this story. But I’ll explain why via your questions.

Q: Are the graphics/photos/images enhancing “Body/Paragraph” or getting in the way? How do you feel about graphics in general in short fiction?
A: Honestly, the graphics and images were my favorite part of the story. I thought they were far more clever than the rest of the content, which relied too heavily on random pop culture references and writing cliches. I’m certainly not against pop culture references or the occasional wink at the audience, but this story tosses celebrity names and literary cliches at the reader like throwing stars (HA HA SEE WHAT I DID THERE). They’re not sly or clever. They’re just everywhere. And while that might be the point, it didn’t work for me.

Q: I’d say this one can fairly be labeled “satire.” Would you call it Horatian (playful) or Juvenalian (full of contempt)? Can a satire be both? Like some of us have talked about before, must all satire come from a place of anger?
A: Of course a satire can be both. But I found this piece too angry and shallow (so Juvenalian, I guess). It lacked heart, which — to me — is essential to satire.

Q: Character development can be a hurdle in stories such as this one. Does Choi do a good job of giving Caroline and Han-soo some depth? Or are they cartoonish characters? If the latter, does the story suffer because of it?
A: I think they’re too cartoonish. Yes, that’s probably the point she wanted to make. But if you give a little beating heart to even the most superficial character, they make the satire even more powerful. There were opportunities to make Han-Soo and Caroline real, like in the chart about their fights. But instead, they’re left as caricatures: as heist perpetrators, as a weary fight-prone couple, etc. I felt bad for them, but I didn’t really like them. And I think that does the story a disservice.

As a Mexican-American living in a society that often overlooks racial stereotypes about her people, I feel for Choi’s characters and their uphill fight against how their world sees them. (Ahem: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0823-high-school-event-20120823,0,5135884.story) And I admit that, on paper (pun not intended), it’s a clever idea to throw together a bunch of pop culture references, ethnic stereotypes, every writing cliche in the book (I’m counting on that being intentional), and a bunch of silly graphs. But, again, the execution didn’t work for me.

Reply
September 4, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Laura Roberts says:

Someone once said that a good satire can only be written by someone who still has hope for humanity. I would have to agree with that. Otherwise, you’re just airing your grievances and, really, ranting. Which is hardly ironic or insightful. Satire surely comes from a place of anger, but it must also come from a belief that things can (and should, and WILL!) be better, otherwise it is just the mark of a curmudgeon.

Kind of like my beef with philosophy, satire is, I think, ultimately an area best served by those who would ACT, versus those who would merely TALK. If you truly believe in something, and you truly have a belief that the world would be better if your belief were put into practice, then by gum, try to practice it yourself, even if no one else does. How else does one foment a revoluation?

Reply