Reading Invisible Cites at first was a challenge. Here were to famous historical figures, Kublai Khan and Marco Polo sitting in a garden having conversations, sometimes without even speaking out loud, but in their minds. The speaking in their minds bothered me to no end and prevented me from really thinking about this book. The telepathic conversations were not really helping me, nor was the movement of the book. I was steaming and raving to my book loving sister about how much it didn't make sense with the telepathic historical figures and a magical anachronistic atlas (I was honestly waiting for Ms. Frizzle to show with her magic school bus to go on a crazy fun adventure). Finally I stepped away from everything in the book and put it aside. I read other books and then it hit me. I saw the layers of the book just as some "Beersheba" was layered with the celestial and underground cities. And i thought about the back of the book which says that all these cities described were actually one city. Puzzled at first I finally understood the meaning of that statement. The way Marco Polo described the cities was all his perception. He could very well have been describing Venice all the time because it is all about the way we as people perceive. I think it could be like when people are shown ink blots on cards and are asked what they see. While one person may see a dog the next person could see a swan or a balloon or Michael Jackson. People focus on certain details, like I did obsessing with the plausibility of telepathic powers, missing the whole picture. We see what we see and when we describe it like Marco Polo did. At first he could only make gestures and noises and uses props like chess pieces which was actually better that when he could describe it in words. For me this book raised good questions and put interesting thoughts into my head. Do we all see the same thing but then describe it differently in words or do we all see different things to start? Are our minds deceiving us? Do our words complicate us too much? Is it all perception?
I also liked how each city had its name and like a person had its own personality. And the Classical references like the Penates and Mercury and Penthesilea.
I really like your comparison to the ink blots Bridget, and I agree that every city would most likely be described completely differently if it were by someone other than Marco Polo. I found it especially cool how every city had its own name, bringing it back to the idea that every city was alive. It made me consider the cities like people, and as you mentioned, everyone sees something different in other people. A person can be seen in many different lights depending on the one who is doing the looking. Also, although every person is unique in their own way, many make the argument that "everyone is the same inside," which can also be translated back to the idea that all of the cities are fundamentally the same.
ReplyDeleteI found the method of communication between Kublai and Marco Polo fascinating, and I think we do all see the same things, yet then describe them differently with words. Even after Marco Polo masters Kublai's language, he still resorts back to objects to describe the cities because his emblems can say more than his words ever could. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Kublai Khan was left to interpret Marco Polo's signs and emblems on his own. Instead of painting a picture of the city in Kublai's mind with words, Marco Polo gave him the picture and let him come up with the rest.
ReplyDelete