"Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'"

*Spoiler Warning: The end of the novel is talked about in various moments in this post. If you do not wish to hear of the ending yet, please refrain from viewing at this time*


What I researched and Why:

After having read seven chapters (though that number will most likely have changed by the time one reads this), of Sherman Alexie's Flight, I was really interested in finding out more information about Sherman Alexie and the text. Not only did I want to do so because I find Alexie's narrative style interesting, but I'm fascinated with the fact that Flight is a fairly recent novel, and is from an author, that while having written other well-recepted texts (Reservation Blues, Indian Killer, etc), I had never heard of before. I suppose you could say, in so few words, that I wanted to go on a fact finding mission and see what I could dig up.

What I found:

When I typed "Flight" (Sherman Alexie) in Google, it produced a gold mine of results. Not only can one find book reviews from major newspapers, but also that Sherman Alexie has his own blog devoted to his Flight book tour. While perhaps someone else would like to post about that blog (but if no one chooses not to, it's still worth looking at), I found something very interesting. Earlier this year in April, Sherman Alexie did about a seventeen minute radio interview for NPR (National Public Radio)'s segment Talk of the Nation, wherein he discussed quite a bit about Flight.

This should link you straight to the interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/popup.php?id=9517858&type=1&date=11-Apr-2007&au=1&pid=43343430&random=0330506640&guid=000940667C54071E5CE4353061626364&uaType=WM&aaType=RM,WM&upf=Win32&topicName=Books&subtopicName=Fiction&prgCode=TOTN&hubId=-1&thingId=9517855&ssid=&tableModifier=&mtype=WM

However, if it doesn't, please try this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9517855

(If you use this link, you just have to click the red "Listen", which is below the title "Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'")

Here are some points from the interview (in case no one can get it to work):

-The book's narrative track originated from Alexie watching a documentary on the events of September 11th. Alexie remembered an interview with a flight instructor that had taught one of the terrorists how to fly, and noted the sense of personal betrayal the man exuded. The instructor had grown to be friends with the terrorist (he remembers telling jokes, getting drunk with him, etc), but it just shocked him that this same man, who he had called his friend, had committed such a horrible act. Alexie combined this essence of personal betrayal and ethnic crime to create Flight.

-While writing about this, Alexie remembered other violent acts in U.S. history and what stories had not been told about these events. He then wanted to write about these eras as well.

-But the problem he had was that he had multiple stories, and couldn't connect them together. He solved the problem after reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, wherein the main character of that story could travel through time. As Alexie states in the interview, "If Vonnegut could do it, I could try" (Maybe this is the reason why there is a Slaughterhouse-Five quote before the story begins...)

-Alexie addresses the question of Flight being "A Study of Violence". He's surprised that the book has been received half postively and half negatively. He believes that the book is based on the idea that violence is perpetuated on both sides of any conflict, even using the Iraq war as an example. Alexie credits the Iraq war a lot in writing this novel.

-Flight came about also from Alexie's work on another book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.

-Alexie addressed the ending of Flight. *Here is where the spoilers come in *



Alexie wanted to be "Hopeful about being Hopeful" He's surprised that the ending has received some negative criticism because he [Alexie] is being hopeful. He had been cynical with all his other works, but now is being punished for being optimistic. Also, Alexie had written alternate endings to the novel, but chose the one he did because he thought it was just the right one.


*End spoiler*




-Alexie compares himself to Zits while talking about the funny points to the novel. He mentions the blend of violence and humor in the novel, and says that Flight has been particularly criticized for its humor. Alexie says that he's been called "shallow" and "glib"

-Alexie addresses an Indian stereotype, proving it true in many cases in his life.


My Interpretation/ What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that I cannot continue without saying first that it's quite rather nice to actually hear Sherman Alexie's voice. In a way, it seems to add another dimension to understanding him (putting the photo to the voice/putting the voice to the photo). After all, aside from written comments and photographs, we have not literally "heard" from any of the other authors of the texts we've read in this course. I don't know, it just seems to make him more identifying and personable.

I find Alexie's comment on violence being perpetuated on both sides of a conflict really interesting. It seems to me that he is saying that violence is infinite, a never ending Mobius strip. Yet something about that just doesn't seem to sit right with me. If violence is perpetuated on both sides, is there really no chance for peace? What of the cases where conflicts of violence have been resolved? If the conflict has been resolved, isn't this a critical contradiction? Or is one side of the conflict still prone to violence?

*Spoiler: Discussion of end from here on *



Like Sherman Alexie, I'm also surprised about the criticism that the end of the novel has been getting. Granted I haven't finished the novel yet, but I find the criticism itself interesting. The end is being criticized because it is hopeful and shows optimism, that things can have a resolution.

Why would critics be against this? For me, this reminds me of part of the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the portrayal and shielding of violence and adult themes towards children. On the one hand, we have one group wanting to shield children from blood and gore, while the other doesn't want these issues hidden, to show them reality.

For a novel such as Flight, even from what you have read so far, which ending would you prefer? Should it have a happy ending, such as Alexie's hopeful optimism or not? That everything can be alright for the troubled and violent boy after all? The happy ending seems in league with the way most children's literature, past and present, ends ("Happily Ever After" and the like). Are happy endings realistic? Or, are they shields to protect the child from what really should/would happen? If we deny the existence of hope, such as Alexie's critics have been doing, what does that say about reality, and for that matter, society and values? Have they changed throughout the flight of the ages?