57 pages • 1 hour read
Rebecca SteadA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Rules appear as a motif throughout the novel, often representing the status quo or the expected way to do things. One significant example of this is Bob English’s fascination with spelling reform. Bob appreciates that the theory challenges the idea that we should continue to do things the same way we’ve always done them, even if familiarity is the only reason to perpetuate the habit. Additionally, the Blue Team collectively breaks the rules of Capture the Flag when they ignore the Red Team’s flag and hide the blue flag so well that the other team never finds it. The “cool” kids—Dallas, Carter, and Mandy—are outraged that the Blue Team isn’t playing “by the rules,” because the rules typically give them the upper hand. Georges’s method for stopping Dallas and Carter’s bullying also involves subverting the rules—he and the Blue Team form their own set of rules, one that demands that they show no reaction to the bitter-tasting chemical. By following these rules and depriving Dallas of the opportunity to single Georges out, they beat Dallas’s attempts to bully him. This motif comes to its climax when Georges has the idea to subvert the taste test. He thinks:
There are all kinds of rules. There are written-down school rules like Dad is talking about, and there are rules we just live with without even asking ourselves why. Candy is right. Why shouldn’t her table be the cool table? Who says I have to try to steal the other team’s flag? Why does Bob have to spell dumb with a B? What if you decided to make your own rules? (149)
Candy is highlighted in this quote as a source of Georges’s newfound resistance to rules, but Safer’s family also provides many examples of breaking unspoken societal rules. For example, Safer and Candy do not attend formal schooling, they are allowed to pursue their own interests, and they were even named after their own passions as they developed, rather than being named at birth. Their family’s unusual approach to life, Candy’s explicit challenging of the rules, and Bob English’s resistance to the rules of spelling all reflect the novel’s call to challenge the status quo and question the rules whenever they don’t make sense.
The novel highlights a motif or pattern of perception and how it influences a person’s view of the world. There are several examples of this throughout the novel, spread across a wide variety of characters. One such instance is Georges’s realization that the shop he knows as “Bennie’s” and considers to be one of his “places” also belongs to Candy, Safer’s sister. Candy calls the shop “the Chock-Nut.” This baffles Georges, who has never heard it called by the name on the sign. When he marvels at this to Bennie, Bennie is unmoved. Seeking more information, Georges asks what Bennie calls it. Bennie tells him, “work” (40). Here the novel develops three ways of perceiving the same shop. Importantly, while Georges considers it “Bennie’s,” Bennie himself does not seem to feel the same sense of ownership or attachment.
Another example of the ways in which perception impacts reality occurs when the novel explores Bob English’s interest in spelling reform. He challenges Georges to perceive misspelled words in new ways, pointing out that people perceive the same letter as many different sounds depending on the words they appear in. When he highlights this with the word “fish” and a new spelling of “ghoti,” he points out that we perceive the gh sound as f in the word laugh, for example. Candy also challenges Georges’s acceptance of perception as reality when she insists that she would simply call her own lunch table the “cool table” and let everyone sit there. Georges says this is not possible, but Candy understands that what makes the cool table cool is the collective perception of its coolness; changing the definition of “cool” therefore makes it possible to change the lunchroom hierarchy.
Finally, Georges and Safer’s differing perceptions on their spy game leads to conflict and nearly ends their friendship. While Safer perceives the adventure as a game of make-believe between friends, Georges perceives it to be real. What Safer sees as imaginative contributions to their adventures, Georges perceives to be lies. Georges’s father gently suggests that his son shift his perspective by asking, “Did you go down there thinking you would find real spies? […] So weren’t you kind of on notice from the beginning that it was a game?” (147-48). When Georges protests that Safer “acted serious. Like he believed it,” Georges’s father points out, “Some games are played that way” (148). Changing his perspective on Safer’s actions and motivations from lies and mockery to play and games helps Georges to repair their friendship and move forward. Just as pointillism functions as a symbol for perspective, the motif of perception’s influence on reality helps develop the novel’s messages about the importance of one’s mindset.
This artistic technique refers to a style of painting that uses small, distinct dots of color to compose a larger, cohesive image. The technique was developed in 1886 by painters Georges Seurat and Paul Signac. Seurat is the artist whose work Georges’s family has hanging on the wall behind their couch, and the protagonist himself is also named after the artist. Georges uses Seurat’s dots as a symbolic way to discuss his method of compartmentalizing and detaching from the difficult things that happen in his life. This symbol is tightly tied to the theme of The Big Picture Versus The Daily Details, for it represents Georges’s stubborn focus on what he calls “the big picture” at the expense of the things that happen to him on a daily basis.
The novel’s style is in some ways a form of literary pointillism. Its relatively sparse prose and short scenes constitute the dots that make up the overall novel. Small moments of emotion are juxtaposed with sharply contrasting feelings to create a complex picture of a quiet, eccentric boy who is drowning in a constant drip of fear and anxiety. Rather than blending the narrative together through transitions, Stead roughly pushes disparate moments together using Georges’s wandering internal reflections and supplementing them with non-narrative elements such as lists and notes. An example of these discrete scenes occurs in Chapter 18, when Georges volunteers to let Mr. Landau, the science teacher, swab and photograph his tongue. The novel starts with Georges’s internal narration of this moment, when he thinks, “[I]t turns out that I’m short a few taste buds […]. I am officially below average. Thank you, Mr. Landau,” (112) and then switches abruptly to Carter’s dialogue in another time and place: “Now we know why Gorgeous loves school lunch! […] He can’t taste it!” (112). In this way, the form of the narrative deliberately echoes the artistic style of pointillism and uses it to create a symbolic representation of the way that Georges perceives the world.
By Rebecca Stead