Snow Falling on Cedars Revision: Technique

 

Guterson’s technique.

 

The whole novel is framed within the three day trial of Kabuo Miyamoto. As you reread for revision, notice the ways in which Guterson uses memories and historical/descriptive details to expand this timescale and to allow fluid movement between past and present.

 

Note and  learn some sample chapters and sequences within and between chapters.

 

You should then sample the novel to track how and when we learn details about the characters of the major players.

 

Remember the various genres which the book hybridises; these include:

-        whodunit (thriller)

-        novel to evoke time and place (Puget Sound in the 1940s and 50s)

-        a novel of coming of age/growing up/rites of passage

-        a war novel covering its effects on individuals and communities

-        a war novel vividly recreating the realities of war for those involved

-        a moral novel about man’s quest for the meaning of life/ what is right and wrong

-        textbook accounts of farming and fishing

-        a romance

 

Here is an analysis of chapters 2 to 4.

 

-        first witness is called: Art Moran

-        Hooks questions

-        Art Moran reveals he decided to investigate himself – not call the coastguard – as ‘I felt it was the right thing to do’; this answer ‘gave him the authority of the conscientious man, for which there was ultimately no substitute’ (Note the introduction of a major theme here.)

-        narrator goes into a description of Art for one para and then we are into a 3rd person account of what he had remembered  in bed the night previous to the trial (‘He and his deputy, Abel Martinson, had taken the county launch to White Sand Bay…’)

-        Readers relive with him finding the boat, noticing the coffee cup and the marine battery.

-        We share his memory within this memory  of Carl (‘He liked Carl Heine, knew Carl’s family, went to church with them…’). He remembers Carl’s mother selling her 30 acres to the Jurgensons while Carl was away in the war.

-        We then have a potted biography of Carl, probably in Art’s memory, as a man ‘courteous but not friendly…a good man…rarely laughed’.

-        Dialogue with Abel leads to testing the batteries, getting the net in and finding the body.

-        Art notices a head wound: ‘ Must have banged it against the gunnel going over.’

 

We never hear the main development of the q and a session directly; chapter 3 begins with Nels’s cross examination . Chapter 3 reads like a script and the cut and thrust of the questioning adds drama as Nels establIshes

 

-        it was an accident, as nothing disturbed

-        the 2 men were friends

-        the head wound could possibly have been caused after death

 

Note  how the change of technique maintains our interest and has an element of dramatic immediacy.

 

Chapter 4 begins with the 10.45 recess being called. A brief description of the jurors being led away and the effects of the storm leads to a focus on Ishmael moving to the gallery (feels more at home with the community rather than the outside reporters). We then have (para 8) a 3rd person account of Ishmael’s hearing news of the death of Carl interspersed with his memories of him.

 

Before we hear of his arrival at the harbour to ask his reporter’s questions, however, we have nearly 2 sides on his character and how; he is troubled by his amputated arm – the visible sign of his war experience (and, for readers later, the symbol of his emotional wound). We then have 2 sides on his father and the San Piedro Review, establishing that he had been ‘morally meticulous’, something Ishmael finds hard to emulate because ‘there was … this matter of the war’.

 

A further side and a half on Ishmael reveals he has seen people as ‘animated cavities full of strings and liquids’. He ‘wanted to like everyone. He just couldn’t find a way to do it.’  We learn he sees himself as ‘a one armed man with a pinned up sleeve, past 30 and unmarried’. His mother, commenting on his cynicism, tells him, ‘ You’re your father’s son.’

 

Note: we have here the ingredients for the personal journey Ishmael must make: he must learn that the way to like people is to lose the chip on his shoulder over the losses of his arm and Hatsue and to see people as individuals with lives and families, not as animated cavities. When he has done this, his task will be to find himself in the same way: the final words of both his mother and Hatsue to him are the advice to get married and have children. Both Carl and Kabuo have fouhnd degrees of peace and fulfilment through doing this.

Guterson in  chapters 2 and 3 has provided clues for the ‘whodunit’ plot and in chapter 4 has provided clues for the growing up/self-realisation/redemption theme.

 

We finally have a 3rd person account of Ishmael at Amity Harbor. Yet before we learn of his enquiries, we are given a text book  style description of the lifestyle of a gill netter, and novel-of-time-and-place descriptions of how ‘in San Piedro the silent,  autonomous gill-netter became the collective image of the good man.’

 

Note: good implies also its opposite, evil, and part of the storm of prejudice against Kabuo derives from the subcouscious identification fo him, as resembling the wartime enemy, with the evil which attempts to obliterate the good.

 

We finally have the conversations involving Art, Ishmael and the fIshermen. We learn that Dale Middleton followed Carl’s boat out (Note: this means that Hooks’s later hypothesis that Kabuo followed him out is improbable – but no-one seems to remember this.)  Carl was in Ship Channel Bank, set in for the night and the fog was ‘ fog soup’: the alert ‘whodunit ‘ reader has a clue here; all readers can relate the fog symbolically to their and the court’s quest for the truth.

 

Ishmael reveals he knows the Miyamotos by name, as Dale Middleton says, ‘Suckers all look alike.’

 

The chapter ends with Ishmael being asked by Art Moran to – for the moment – report this as an accident.

 

Note: the implication here that the movement will be away from this ‘accident’ theory is in fact a traditional ‘whodunit’ red herring.