0 reactions
On essays vs. novels
At some point in my life I've gotten fairly bored with fiction, or at least story-telling as such. I'm reading more novels these days, but very selectively and nowhere near as many as I used to when I was younger: I've never stopped being passionate about essays though, which is perhaps a rather curious thing. A short but interesting introductory fragment from *Virginia Woolf's Essayism* by Randi Saloman (p. 16-18) – as food for thought.
>The modernity that Woolf identified in the essay stems primarily from its ambiguous position along the generic spectrum. Free from the expectations of linear narrative, the essay has no obligation to complete, or even to tell, a story – or to tell only one story. The essay is ordinarily classified as a non-fiction genre, yet it is not bound to ‘prove’ the truth of its statements in an objective fashion, and a certain license is more or less assumed by the reader. The essayist is understood to be speaking not as a scholar, or as an expert on a given subject, but simply as one who is interested in the topic at hand and wishes to open a dialogue with the reader, feeling that an idea or a question of interest has been uncovered. Essayists make no claim that their works are ‘finished’ or closed to further argument, but rather look to their readers to continue the thought process they have initiated. The most natural and appropriate response to an essay (as any number of essayists have demonstrated) is another essay.
>The novel is more remote from its audience. The novel reader enters a given work at its start and leaves at its close, with the implicit understanding that the novel (however experimental or ambiguous it may be) is complete in its own right. The novel seeks approval and consent, rather than ongoing engagement. The reader’s job is finished when the novel is read to completion, at which point one is expected to depart peacefully and without incident, making no further claim upon the events with which she has been temporarily engaged. Nowhere is this idea more vividly expressed than in a journal entry of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
>Always deeply suspicious of novels, Emerson attempts to make sense of his own frustration after re-reading Walter Scott’s *Quentin Durward*, and finding himself unceremoniously dismissed at its conclusion. As he does so, he puts his finger on the problem I am attempting to set out here:
>\[Emerson quote:\] To find a story which I thought I remembered in *Quentin Durward*, I turned over the volume until I was fairly caught in the old foolish trap and read and read to the end of the novel. Then, as often before, I feel indignant to have been duped and dragged after a foolish boy and girl, to see them at last married and portioned, and I instantly turned out of doors like a beggar that has followed a gay procession into the castle.
>E.M. Forster addresses the problem more succinctly, declaring that ‘\[n\]early all novels are feeble at the end’,9 and that this is ‘the inherent defect of novels’. When the essay moves openly into the realm of fiction, it aims at very different ends than those of the novel. The essayist’s goal is to communicate directly with the reader, rather than to present that reader with a closed narrative. The ability of the essay to incorporate non-narrative fiction – or self-contained fictions within a larger non-fictional work, or fictions that may or may not be fictions at all – allows for a new approach to fictionality, one that frees imaginative modern prose from the restrictions imposed by the traditional novel’s structure.
#entertainment
source
At some point in my life I've gotten fairly bored with fiction, or at least story-telling as such. I'm reading more novels these days, but very selectively and nowhere near as many as I used to when I was younger: I've never stopped being passionate about essays though, which is perhaps a rather curious thing. A short but interesting introductory fragment from *Virginia Woolf's Essayism* by Randi Saloman (p. 16-18) – as food for thought.
>The modernity that Woolf identified in the essay stems primarily from its ambiguous position along the generic spectrum. Free from the expectations of linear narrative, the essay has no obligation to complete, or even to tell, a story – or to tell only one story. The essay is ordinarily classified as a non-fiction genre, yet it is not bound to ‘prove’ the truth of its statements in an objective fashion, and a certain license is more or less assumed by the reader. The essayist is understood to be speaking not as a scholar, or as an expert on a given subject, but simply as one who is interested in the topic at hand and wishes to open a dialogue with the reader, feeling that an idea or a question of interest has been uncovered. Essayists make no claim that their works are ‘finished’ or closed to further argument, but rather look to their readers to continue the thought process they have initiated. The most natural and appropriate response to an essay (as any number of essayists have demonstrated) is another essay.
>The novel is more remote from its audience. The novel reader enters a given work at its start and leaves at its close, with the implicit understanding that the novel (however experimental or ambiguous it may be) is complete in its own right. The novel seeks approval and consent, rather than ongoing engagement. The reader’s job is finished when the novel is read to completion, at which point one is expected to depart peacefully and without incident, making no further claim upon the events with which she has been temporarily engaged. Nowhere is this idea more vividly expressed than in a journal entry of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
>Always deeply suspicious of novels, Emerson attempts to make sense of his own frustration after re-reading Walter Scott’s *Quentin Durward*, and finding himself unceremoniously dismissed at its conclusion. As he does so, he puts his finger on the problem I am attempting to set out here:
>\[Emerson quote:\] To find a story which I thought I remembered in *Quentin Durward*, I turned over the volume until I was fairly caught in the old foolish trap and read and read to the end of the novel. Then, as often before, I feel indignant to have been duped and dragged after a foolish boy and girl, to see them at last married and portioned, and I instantly turned out of doors like a beggar that has followed a gay procession into the castle.
>E.M. Forster addresses the problem more succinctly, declaring that ‘\[n\]early all novels are feeble at the end’,9 and that this is ‘the inherent defect of novels’. When the essay moves openly into the realm of fiction, it aims at very different ends than those of the novel. The essayist’s goal is to communicate directly with the reader, rather than to present that reader with a closed narrative. The ability of the essay to incorporate non-narrative fiction – or self-contained fictions within a larger non-fictional work, or fictions that may or may not be fictions at all – allows for a new approach to fictionality, one that frees imaginative modern prose from the restrictions imposed by the traditional novel’s structure.
#entertainment
source
0 reactions
What makes a book unfilmable?
I know that a lot of books are called unfilmable for depictions of gore or some problematic aspects, but I want to know about the other kind. Why books such as the house of leaves, and others are unique to the medium. There is an underlying aspect to what is only possible in literature. A lot of advancements have been made in film technology and there are aspects which blow me away. But what kind of techniques are in books that films/video games etc can't emulate, or at least to the same degree.
I want to know about the narrative encyclopedias that are just unique to the medium.
Any and all suggestions/modifications to the question are welcome.
#entertainment
I know that a lot of books are called unfilmable for depictions of gore or some problematic aspects, but I want to know about the other kind. Why books such as the house of leaves, and others are unique to the medium. There is an underlying aspect to what is only possible in literature. A lot of advancements have been made in film technology and there are aspects which blow me away. But what kind of techniques are in books that films/video games etc can't emulate, or at least to the same degree.
I want to know about the narrative encyclopedias that are just unique to the medium.
Any and all suggestions/modifications to the question are welcome.
#entertainment
0 reactions
Frankenstein's Creature Became a Monster of His Own Will
I have to get something off of my chest about the Creature: he **was** a monster.
It irks me when I hear people say "The Creature wasn't the monster; it was Frankenstein." I feel like those that say that don't remember the story well.
After the Creature was rejected by the family in the cottage that he helped and secretly cared for, he gave into his despair and decided to "force" people to love him, the first of which was Victor's son. He decided that a child would be pliable enough. He didn't know that the child was his Creator's son at first but once he did, he didn't hesitate to kill him and strangled him to death.
And then, as most people know, he asked Victor to make a companion for him, in the same fashion as he had been made. Seeing as he was struggling with fitting in with society and finding his own identity, it was selfish of him to not consider that she might have similar misgivings. Even though he promised Victor that he would leave to live in the wild after his Companion had been created, what if she didn't want to live with him? He didn't consider the possible feelings of Her, just as Victor never considered his own.
The Creature wasn't a monster because of his appearance; he made himself into one because of his actions.
#entertainment
source
I have to get something off of my chest about the Creature: he **was** a monster.
It irks me when I hear people say "The Creature wasn't the monster; it was Frankenstein." I feel like those that say that don't remember the story well.
After the Creature was rejected by the family in the cottage that he helped and secretly cared for, he gave into his despair and decided to "force" people to love him, the first of which was Victor's son. He decided that a child would be pliable enough. He didn't know that the child was his Creator's son at first but once he did, he didn't hesitate to kill him and strangled him to death.
And then, as most people know, he asked Victor to make a companion for him, in the same fashion as he had been made. Seeing as he was struggling with fitting in with society and finding his own identity, it was selfish of him to not consider that she might have similar misgivings. Even though he promised Victor that he would leave to live in the wild after his Companion had been created, what if she didn't want to live with him? He didn't consider the possible feelings of Her, just as Victor never considered his own.
The Creature wasn't a monster because of his appearance; he made himself into one because of his actions.
#entertainment
source