Yes; the protagonist invents it to communicate with him and then it evolves rapidly between them—by the end of the book it's capable of expressing complex concepts, although I'm not sure how Deaf readers would feel about it. I don't mean that snarkily. I don't know any sign languages except for the ASL alphabet and a couple of really common signs, so I can't evaluate anything about Marnie and Raven's invented language as a language. I can wonder about the way it's translated and the way it's used in the text. The author says in her afterword:
Also, I drew on my own experience in writing of Marnie's difficulties as she tries to communicate with Raven, who is deaf. For several years I worked with profoundly deaf children in schools, and spoke with them through signs. Marnie's dealings with Raven—her difficulties, frustration, despair, joy, and triumph—are all things I have experienced. The sign language she invents is obviously different from the official sign languages of today, though some signs are based on natural gestures, and are therefore similar.
What I can't help noticing about this statement now is that it reframes the process of Raven learning to communicate (with signs; he is just learning to speak aloud by the end of the novel) entirely in terms of Marnie, which on the one hand is fair enough—she's the protagonist and most of the narrative is from her perspective—and on the other elides Raven's experience, when it's apparent from the text that he feels a lot of frustration, despair, joy, and triumph himself. And that makes me more skeptical of the author's handling of signing overall, if she thinks of it in terms of Marnie's success rather than Raven's, or a joint triumph. Maybe there are some writers who just shouldn't talk about their process. I'd have problems with this novel without the afterword, but the author's own opinions only seem to strengthen them.
Anyway, I don't know the book enough to comment on how the author handled the specifics of historicity, but I agree that it sounds like the answer is "sloppily."
Yeah. And it's frustrating, because there are many elements of the novel that I enjoyed the first time and still enjoyed on re-read, but they're hampered by issues like the setting and the questions I have about its handling of Raven's deafness. I mean, he's also the romantic hero, which is pretty cool. It's just . . . It could have been a better book.
no subject
Yes; the protagonist invents it to communicate with him and then it evolves rapidly between them—by the end of the book it's capable of expressing complex concepts, although I'm not sure how Deaf readers would feel about it. I don't mean that snarkily. I don't know any sign languages except for the ASL alphabet and a couple of really common signs, so I can't evaluate anything about Marnie and Raven's invented language as a language. I can wonder about the way it's translated and the way it's used in the text. The author says in her afterword:
Also, I drew on my own experience in writing of Marnie's difficulties as she tries to communicate with Raven, who is deaf. For several years I worked with profoundly deaf children in schools, and spoke with them through signs. Marnie's dealings with Raven—her difficulties, frustration, despair, joy, and triumph—are all things I have experienced. The sign language she invents is obviously different from the official sign languages of today, though some signs are based on natural gestures, and are therefore similar.
What I can't help noticing about this statement now is that it reframes the process of Raven learning to communicate (with signs; he is just learning to speak aloud by the end of the novel) entirely in terms of Marnie, which on the one hand is fair enough—she's the protagonist and most of the narrative is from her perspective—and on the other elides Raven's experience, when it's apparent from the text that he feels a lot of frustration, despair, joy, and triumph himself. And that makes me more skeptical of the author's handling of signing overall, if she thinks of it in terms of Marnie's success rather than Raven's, or a joint triumph. Maybe there are some writers who just shouldn't talk about their process. I'd have problems with this novel without the afterword, but the author's own opinions only seem to strengthen them.
Anyway, I don't know the book enough to comment on how the author handled the specifics of historicity, but I agree that it sounds like the answer is "sloppily."
Yeah. And it's frustrating, because there are many elements of the novel that I enjoyed the first time and still enjoyed on re-read, but they're hampered by issues like the setting and the questions I have about its handling of Raven's deafness. I mean, he's also the romantic hero, which is pretty cool. It's just . . . It could have been a better book.