Open City by Teju Cole is undoubtedly a narrative without a concise plot for the reader to distinguish a climax or resolution. Instead, the protagonist narrates his observations as he roams New York City and at one point Brussels and colorfully references an inconceivable number of literary, musical and artistic works. This style allows Teju Cole the flexibility to probe a broad array of subjects such as slavery, death, denial of the wrong one does, racism, genocide and the post 9/11 sentimentality. Such an immense volume of random but eager conversations sprung up by strangers about Nazis, leftist America and the kidnapping of the Baron’s daughter lead the reader to feel that the combination of intellect and people’s predisposition to engage
…show more content…
Julius often does this, what starts off as as a seemingly simple walk down Wall Street or through Chinatown, causes him to make allusions to literary and artistic works. To enumerate, Julius walks down Broadway and in Battery Park observes mothers playing with their children on the swings but thinks “This had been a busy mercantile part of the city in the middle of the nineteenth century. Trading in slaves had become a capital offense in the United States in 1820, but New York remained…” (163). As impractical as it may seem for the average person to hold such a wide array of factual knowledge, it is common to think in a tangent when one thing reminds us of the next. Again, Teju Cole creates scenarios to exemplifying a more realistic character when Julius’s mention of a historical fact is actually incorrect, in mistaking a museum in Brussels. In like manner, people do speak confidently about things they think they know. Catching Julius’s error makes the reader feel that not only is he wrong, he is not …show more content…
In particular, when Julius finally tells us of Moji’s account of the harm he caused when he was fourteen years old. Readers are not given the opportunity for live dialogue as was the template for the conversations he held with Farouq and Khalil in Brussels to give the impression of living the moment with them. Instead, Julius introduces the short events of the party and finishes the synopsis telling of an encounter with John Musson, Moji’s boyfriend, illustrating his annoyance. The reader is left to believe that was all that happened as Julius describes his walk through Harlem when he leaves the party (241). Later, he introduces the thoughts he has of the self v. hero in one’s own story and his objectivity to his moral standing leading the reader into his inner battle as he digests Moji’s “precise memory”. The reader, now having felt familiar with Julius by the twentieth chapter, is taken aback by this new characterization. Is he unreliable as a narrator? Some may jump to judge his apathy and lack of sincere apology. However, in cases of unforeseen circumstances one’s actions may be deemed socially inadequate but realistically, when informed with unknown details of oneself, it takes a moment to register and weigh the validity before even thinking of how to respond, if a response is found at
Julius often does this, what starts off as as a seemingly simple walk down Wall Street or through Chinatown, causes him to make allusions to literary and artistic works. To enumerate, Julius walks down Broadway and in Battery Park observes mothers playing with their children on the swings but thinks “This had been a busy mercantile part of the city in the middle of the nineteenth century. Trading in slaves had become a capital offense in the United States in 1820, but New York remained…” (163). As impractical as it may seem for the average person to hold such a wide array of factual knowledge, it is common to think in a tangent when one thing reminds us of the next. Again, Teju Cole creates scenarios to exemplifying a more realistic character when Julius’s mention of a historical fact is actually incorrect, in mistaking a museum in Brussels. In like manner, people do speak confidently about things they think they know. Catching Julius’s error makes the reader feel that not only is he wrong, he is not …show more content…
In particular, when Julius finally tells us of Moji’s account of the harm he caused when he was fourteen years old. Readers are not given the opportunity for live dialogue as was the template for the conversations he held with Farouq and Khalil in Brussels to give the impression of living the moment with them. Instead, Julius introduces the short events of the party and finishes the synopsis telling of an encounter with John Musson, Moji’s boyfriend, illustrating his annoyance. The reader is left to believe that was all that happened as Julius describes his walk through Harlem when he leaves the party (241). Later, he introduces the thoughts he has of the self v. hero in one’s own story and his objectivity to his moral standing leading the reader into his inner battle as he digests Moji’s “precise memory”. The reader, now having felt familiar with Julius by the twentieth chapter, is taken aback by this new characterization. Is he unreliable as a narrator? Some may jump to judge his apathy and lack of sincere apology. However, in cases of unforeseen circumstances one’s actions may be deemed socially inadequate but realistically, when informed with unknown details of oneself, it takes a moment to register and weigh the validity before even thinking of how to respond, if a response is found at