One of the parts of the book that really stuck out to me was when Alex and Ben go to see the film The Clock. I think part of what stuck out was that the concept of the film really intrigues me. It is a very interesting concept, one that I’m not positive I totally understand.
On page 52, Ben tells us that he “had wanted to arrive by 10:04 to see lightning strike the courthouse tower in Back To The Future, allowing Marty to return to 1985.” Considering that the title of the book is 10:04, this feels like important information. So, what is it that Lerner is trying to tell us? What is he trying to get back in time to?
This idea of playing with time is furthered by the fact that Part Two is simply a retelling of Part One. Ostensibly, in this section, we are reading the New Yorker article that Ben had told us he was working on in Part One. But, given the idea of going back in time, maybe this retelling of time is more significant than the magazine article?
This idea of moving fluidly through different points of time comes up in several places throughout the book. On page 63, Liza and the author discuss the benefits of being sedated for oral surgery. The author ruminates, “I can’t figure out if abolishing the memory of pain is the same thing as abolishing the pain.” Later, he goes on to say, “If I take the drugs, it’s like dividing myself into two people. . . the person who experienced the procedure and the person who didn’t. It’s like leaving a version of myself alone with the pain, abandoning him” (64). Interestingly, this rumination takes place in the article Lerner wrote about himself, which is also kind of like splitting himself into two - the fictional author and the real one. It gets more complicated when you realize that Part One might be a fictionalized account of Lerner’s actual life, so then Part Two would be a fictionalized account of a fictionalized account, thus splitting himself into three parts. This is reminiscent of the Back To the Future movies, where Marty accidentally affects the timeline, thus causing three possible futures. This concept of the author dividing himself into two people is repeated again on page 78, as well as several other places in the book.
The idea of divided self, or two different realities comes up again with the story of Ashley, the girl who lied about having cancer. It also is echoed in the story of Noor, who grew up believing that she was of Lebanese descent, but sees herself growing paler when she finds out that she wasn’t actually Lebanese. Throughout the book, Lerner plays with this idea of divided reality, of dual possibilities.
It feels like Lerner is not confident in the path that he is choosing, and so he is trying to create an “out” for himself if he discovers he doesn’t like the future he is in. By creating a divided world, there is always another option. Thus, we get the idea of 10:04, that moment in time when everything resets itself so the main character can start afresh.
Of course, outside of books and movies, time doesn’t work this way. There is no bolt of lightening that will reset everything, and we can’t divide ourselves into different realities in order to explore the possibilities. Lerner seems to address this on page 223 when he tells Roberto, “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted; it belongs to the brave.” Although he is saying this out loud to Roberto, it feels like he might really be saying it to himself, an admonition to start living in the real world and be brave enough to deal with the future as he’s made it.
Really thoughtful post. I think Lerner is repeating himself when he says that (lyric!) line to Roberto--it's from his Challenger discussion at the beginning of the book (16). So if this is an admonishment to himself to "start living in the real world," it might be sort of a weak one, if it evokes/repeats/looks back on what he's already said! Dr. Lucy
ReplyDelete