Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If this is so, if to read a book as it should be read calls for the rarest qualities of imagination, insight, and judgment, you may perhaps conclude that literature is a very complex art and that it is unlikely that we shall be able, even after a lifetime of reading, to make any valuable contribution to its criticism. We must remain readers; we shall not put on the further glory that belongs to those rare beings who are also critics. But still we have our responsibilities as readers and even our importance. The standards we raise and the judgments we pass steal into the air and become part of the atmosphere which writers breathe as they work. An influence is created which tells upon them even if it never finds its way into print. And that influence, if it were well instructed, vigorous and individual and sincere, might be of great value now when criticism is necessarily in abeyance; when books pass in review like the procession of animals in a shooting gallery, and the critic has only one second in which to load and aim and shoot and may well be pardoned if he mistakes rabbits for tigers, eagles for barndoor fowls, or misses altogether and wastes his shot upon some peaceful cow grazing in a further field. If behind the erratic gunfire of the press the author felt that there was another kind of criticism, the opinion of people reading for the love of reading, slowly and unprofessionally, and judging with great sympathy and yet with great severity, might this not improve the quality of his work? And if by our means books were to become stronger, richer, and more varied, that would be an end worth reaching.
1 comment:
Again, these are just a few things I’m having fun mulling over as I read this section of the book. Feel free to add your own enjoyments.
The Crawley family seems to have put the fun in dysfunctional. The role of money/wealth in their relations to each other is a fun dynamic to watch.
Also interesting to see is how the women in the novel treat other women, and how the roles of wealth, standing, and age impact their actions.
George and Dobbin are contrasted physically in Chapter 5. Does that contrast between the two seem to carry over to other areas of their lives?
The book is full of wooing in the foreground and war in the background. But look at some of the language used to describe the former: “skirmishes,” “campaign,” and “routed” in one section, obviously meant to compare it to the latter. How much of this pervades other parts of the story?
Chapter 9 gives a brief overview of Lady Crawley and her history. Thackeray does not seem to hold a high opinion of her, painting her as having sold her soul for a chance to belong in Vanity Fair. Is this too harsh? How does Lady Crawley differ from other characters in the book attempting the same thing?
The narrator’s omniscience seems to falter at times, while at other times he deliberately misleads or surprises you. How much of a character is the narrator in the book?
OK, that’s a start…
Post a Comment