Comments on: Imaginary Conversations

By: Liz B

Liz B — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:16:40 +0000

Part of the reason I’m enjoying this blog (tho will be frustrated a bit) is I’ve been enjoying reading for me (outside of reading nonfiction, of course) instead of reading thru Printz glasses. One thing about Imaginary Girls — it sticks with the reader. Some books seem good – -well, yes, they are good — and they’re loved in the moment but then, well, two months later it’s what’s that book again. Imaginary Girls sticks; I’m still thinking about it. And I’ll agree with Kelly in that a reread of this adds to the reading experience; I didn’t get to reread the whole thing (just the first few chapters) and, as one example, the number of times Ruby is called magical and the reader doesn’t realize Chloe is being literal.

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:38:57 +0000

@Benjamin: I did mention bad book disease, right? Also known as burnout? Seriously, though, I think the more you read (in any field), the more selective you become--possibly sometimes too much so? Because you have a greater sense of the range of what's out there, which for me means my bar keeps going up. It's also about the year as a whole: if we get to early January and I don't have five books I feel confident betting on, I'll be rereading some of the books that stuck with me and quite possibly contradicting my earlier thoughts. The fact that we can keep circling and arguing over a book sometimes says more than an initial impression.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:05 +0000

Ladies! Your tastes have obviously been refined by committee work. I loved the book in all its chilling, gorgeous glory and I am excited for a second read at some point. I recall being pleasantly surprised that Nova Ren Suma did not feel obliged to tell us the hows and whys of the plot, but instead allowed some of the big questions of the story to just drift away. She is an author to keep an eye on. Regardless, this is quite a feat as a YA debut.

By: Sarah Couri

Sarah Couri — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:51:30 +0000

Kelly, thanks! We’ve both been really curious what reaction a reread would net, so it’s good to hear from someone who’s done it.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:19:40 +0000

I think this is all interpretation-based. I agree 100% on your discussion of the language and world building, but I thought that the entire story was based on emotionally investing in Chloe. While we don’t get the meat and potatoes of who she is in the way we get it about Ruby, we DO get an investment in Chloe because we’re buying every thing she sells us about her sister, even if we don’t necessarily buy that her sister is what she’s made her out to be. I found Chloe to be strong/emotionally engaging/complex because she ISN’T easy to read. We’re intentionally led to see how much there is to Ruby through Chloe, and how we see Ruby is testament to Chloe’s strength as a character.

Your points about initial and secondary reads with this book, though, is spot on. My first read I was a little let down with the ending. But something about it FORCED me to go back and reread. I felt like I was a little teased with such gorgeous writing. But when I stepped back and reread it, removing the beauty of the words (and the lace that Chloe herself is putting over our eyes as readers), the story arc is a heck of a lot stronger. The ending is downright chilling. And again, it gave me a lot more about Chloe. She’s the one who pulls the game on us.

But, as you’ve both conceded, two reads. Especially in a mountain of reading…

By: Liz B

Liz B — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:19:11 +0000

“Spoilers!” in my best River Song voice.

One of the things I adored about this book was that the text supports multiple interpretations about what Ruby is, including that the whole thing is in Chloe’s head. One of the things that frustrates me is that — while I don’t want a “all the tidy answers” book — it’s open ended, with very little to answer “why” once we’ve struggled with “what.” If the author’s failure to give a set answer is viewed as creative and daring, this leans more towards Printz worthy. Personally, though, I think this is why (as Karyn says) it feels mismatched — lovely, lovely, writing. Spot-on development of atmosphere. The sense of horror, of dread, world building: love, love, love. But then when it comes to not giving enough answers — to be too dreamy. I’d put this under strong contender, but I’d need to be convinced about the story arc.