Which Classic Literary Character Are You?

Which Classic Literary Character Are You?
http://www.playbuzz.com/gretab10/which-classic-literary-character-are-you

Sweet Emotion: ‘Atonement’ Characters Upon Reading

            A 2013 Emory University study revealed reading improves language and motor skills for up to five days after reading. It also discovered subjects were able to remember things better, perhaps due to more blood (i.e. oxygen) being funneled to the brain, especially when a narrative arc is involved. This triggers “mirror neurons,” which enable the reader to relate to and empathize with the characters. Additionally, reading about a character’s actions requires the same neural activity in the reader as actually performing the same task. Would this be the same for the characters in story if they read? A look at several characters in “Atonement” suggests they have emotional, and sometimes, physical responses to their readings.

            Briony’s first critical read for “The Trials of Arabella” comes courtesy of her mother, Emily Tallis, who displays looks of “alarm”, and “snickers of glee” later, followed by “grateful smiles” and “affirming nods” which all indicate she enjoyed the play, even giving it a “stupendous” review. Mrs. Tallis’ reactions to the tale of misfortune turned love story follow the arc of the play accordingly. “The Trials of Arabella” also foreshadows much of the narrative for “Atonement” itself.

             

            Though she is not reading at the time, Robbie asks Cecilia how she her reading of “Clarissa” is going. When Cecilia responds “boring,” the novel's narrative inertia reflects her own ennui. But, Robbie, who is rolling a cigarette for Cecilia, prods her to keep reading, that “it gets better.” This makes Cecilia think Robbie can detect “her taste for the full-bodied and sensual,” just prior to him offering and lighting her cigarette. While Cecilia is a proxy for the lead in “Clarissa,” there is no doubt this encounter literally ignites the sexual dynamic between Robbie and Cecilia.

            The sexual motif is further amplified when Robbie begins to write the cursed note to Cecilia. At first he jokes, “I don’t think I can blame the heat.”  Even the mere thought of seeing “Grey’s Anatomy,” after years of studying it, arouses Robbie to fantasize about Cecilia. He types more versions of the note with the book opened to the inflammatory page.

            Later, Robbie hands the note to Briony for delivery to Cecilia. A compulsion to “know everything” leads Briony to read the note. Upon reading it, she feels threatened and “immediately sens[es] the danger contained in such crudity.”  The “order of their household” is in jeopardy, as well as Briony’s own longing for Robbie.

            These passages are short hand for the narrative conflict and illustrate the dynamic between the three main characters, who will each endure personal adversity when they leave the country estate.  It is fascinating to find within these few simple passages that even characters in a novel are swept by emotions and physical stirrings when they read.

The Angry Mob

            There is an old saying in Hollywood: “It doesn’t matter what they say about you as long as they’re talking about you.” In other words, criticisms and controversy end up functioning as publicity. That being the case, it is always in an actor’s interests to get arrested, behave erratically in public (especially in front of the paparazzi), and say something outlandish while being interviewed on late night TV.

            A similar phenomenon happens with authors and their books: if the work is controversial, offended someone, was banned and hard to find, it is going to fuel interest. The reasons books are banned range wildly; some contain language that some view as offensive and others are an outright threat to an organization.           

            In Falling into Theory, David H. Richter describes author Allan Bloom’s concerns about literature –particularly what he feels people should read and what he had deemed offensive:

From the right wing, the opening guns were sounded in a book called The

Closing of the American Mind (1987) by Allan Bloom, which became a

runaway best-seller by arguing that America was bringing itself into

spiritual danger by neglecting the Great Books (Plato and Aristotle,

Aquinas and Hobbes) and allowing its youth to drug their collective mind

with relativistic philosophies like those of Max Weber, Friedrich

Nietzsche, and John Dewey, which Bloom considered almost as

soul-destroying as contemporary literature and rock music. (21)

Several points strike me here: First, 1987 was around the time that the Christian right in the U.S. was waging a war against heavy metal. Second, the title, The Closing of the American Mind, is ironic considering Bloom was suggesting that writers he did not agree with should be avoided. Third, I am personally going to be attracted to literature which is referred to as “as soul-destroying as contemporary literature and rock music.” I do not advocate neglecting Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas or Hobbes, but I’ll read Nietzsche while listening to Led Zeppelin and spiritual danger sounds intriguing.

            A part of the American Library Association’s mission is to raise awareness regarding banned books and encourage freedom in our reading choices. Banned books, and the reasons they are banned, are listed on their website. In addition, we are able to report any banning –angry parents or organizations that attempt to remove literature from schools or libraries- and it is taken seriously. The ALA organizes a “Banned Book Week,” which will take place September 27-October 3 this year http://www.ala.org/bbooks/. Banning literature should be archaic –I picture an angry mob with torches and pitchforks- and it is alarming that it still happens. The good news is that every time a controversy is raised over a book for whatever reason, it just promotes it.

Love the Way You Lie: Joe Mitchell and the Matter of Fact and Truth

Publications like The Paris Review and The New Yorker have long been bastions of the literary world. As compendiums of both fiction and non-fiction, many journalists find shelter amongst their pages, which is why the Joe Mitchell story seems preposterous, yet, utterly believable at the same time. Nothing shocks more than reality, yet, nothing is really shocking.

            Currently, there is a shift towards fictional memoirs, which shows an acceptance of possible truths, with stories recalled, crafted and marred by memory and enhanced with dramatic flourishes. Altogether, it’s another way of telling a truth, with the “truth” being the understanding of some human emotion or experience, in essence reflecting ourselves back to us. Facts are cold and hard. They’re the domain of science. The truth, though, is an ideal, which can be somewhat elusive, as it rings differently to different people.

            Do modern times require this modern storytelling? Is there such a thing as modern storytelling? A simple click of a mouse and one can turn to social media to find a constant stream, a “newsfeed”, which inundates followers with the instantly self-curated information of their friends, family, and even their favorite celebrities and pundits. A person can adopt the kind of persona they wish to present, posting and liking things, which give the best impression of themselves or what they want people to know. If something no longer suits you, a post can be edited or deleted. Though, the possibility remains the post may have been cached, therefore living on indefinitely, without your consent.

            Facts are constant, concrete and unwavering. They provide the proof in the pudding. The truth can be obscured or bent, and even ignored. If the purpose of nonfiction is to inform or explain a person or place in relation to the world around them and us, it’s not vastly different from fiction. Both illuminate the same things, in different ways. It makes sense fictional memoirs and social media are slowly becoming the norm, as the lines between fact and fiction have become blurred.

            It’s curious to know if Joe Mitchell had been working in the present day, what would his fate be. Would there be fallout, followed by a firing, and recounted in a memoir? Probably. Humans require story to explain, educate and even entertain. The fact remains, all stories, both fiction and non-fiction, contain the stuff of life, a truth, or the truth, in all its permutations, which imagined or not, is a vital component to our existence.

Behold a “Pale Fire”: Nabokov’s Communion of Consciousness and Creation

When primary colors are mixed together, a new color emerges, one that is lighter, more vibrant. When a memory is mixed with the passage of time, it becomes “colored” too. Sometimes, memories are bright and clear, as if the experience just happened. At other times, they are hazy, diffused and fragmented. And, still other times they are a combination of the two, clear and fragmented, seemingly mismatched, yet soundly apparent. “Pale Fire” is a work of layered memories, fact and fiction, and a meditation on a life of creativity.

“Pale Fire” unfolds via the memories of John Shade, Charles Kinbote, and Vladimir Nabokov, by virtue of his (sometimes, subtle) presence woven throughout. Shade, an eminent writer and protagonist of the story, is revered and lauded by Kinbote, the commentator and custodian of all things “John Shade.” Charles Kinbote is a commanding, yet unreliable observer, like a sound but splintered memory, akin to the shadow self. As narrator and (self-regarded as Shade’s muse), Charles Kinbote is informative, but also irrational and misleading. Kinbote superimposes his own exploits and achievements over Shade’s life and final creation. Their respective recollections create a point counterpoint. Shade’s canto and Kinbote’s commentary are the juxtaposition of the consciousness and the unconscious, with the nexus of creation, laying somewhere in-between. Most notably, the chess motif sprinkled throughout reveals Nabokov’s love of the game, but also reflects the style of the story. In chess, players can move their pieces backwards and forwards, diagonally and sideways. This is mirrored in Kinbote’s commentary, as his recounting veers from past and present, and flits between himself, Shade and others, again and again. The commentary progresses much like ideas and memories zig zag through our minds. Scattering through the light and dark, tangential yet concrete, they unify together, the collusion of the known and the unknown, the conscious and the unconscious, with the novel as the final piece standing.    

            Based on our previous experiences, memories can inform the future as much as they catalog the past. As a storytelling device, they are a facile tool to recall what has happened before and prepare the reader for what lays ahead. Though Kinbote’s observations and Shade’s recollections are seemingly disparate, when taken as a whole, they combine to create, at times, a confounding, but complete story. The final passage reminds us of the third layer and Nabokov’s definitive part in the story. As form follows function, so too, does story follow memory. Indeed, it is born from it.

Tristram and Charles Go Boating: Narrators on the Sea of Remembrance

            Narrators are usually a trusty guide for many a novel. They often chime in to lead or remind the reader to certain facts or events. The novels “The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman” and “Pale Fire” rely heavily on narrators who delight in addressing the reader with their own memories dominant in the narrative, often leaving the reader adrift.

            Tristram Shandy and Charles Kinbote each have created a story labyrinth, a seemingly never-ending, undulating maze of thoughts and memories, with no map available. Though, is a map necessary? Each novel challenges the reader to persist and follow the trail of crumbs in their tales, and cultivate the story amidst the lunacy. At times, both seem unreliable and questionable, which is usually the realm of memory. Details roll over each other, and tales unfold in fluid, and sometimes, rapid motion, leaving the reader awash in details that require deciphering. What has really transpired and what is truly important? These are not black and white tales; these are accounts of curiosity and confusion, which a reader must navigate in their own way.

            At times, both Tristram and Charles may seem like good candidates for psychological therapy, as each exhibit manic and miserable attitudes, with Charles veering on the stalkerish side. For both, an upbeat, thrilling recollection is swiftly exchanged for the dour certainty of their pitiful lot in life, with each one wondering what will become of them. One sizeable difference between the two narrators is that Tristram constantly deflects from himself, the protagonist of his tale, and focuses on his relatives. While Charles spends more time recounting his own exploits, and his immeasurable and significant influence on John Shade, the protagonist of his story.

           

            If neither narrator spends much time addressing their subject matter, why read to the end when there are so many detours? Is this the end? Is it going back to the beginning? Initially, this is a cumbersome, and at times, debilitating factor in these stories, often tempting a reader to With their memories shifting focus on time, place, and people, it can be a struggle to complete sophisticated works such as “Tristram Shandy” and “Pale Fire”, for they require the reader’s constant and vigilant companionship on the journey. With extreme patience, careful attention, and even, repeated readings, a narrative emerges from the pages. Each novel proves there is a method to the madness, for surely, many a reader feels frustrated reading them. Self-reflexive in nature and crammed with sensational and preposterous escapades, Tristram and Charles succeed as narrators by charting their own circuitous route, directing the reader, through the process of memory, to their respective stories.

Our Frenemies, Our Selves: Growing Up in ‘Northanger Abbey’

The OED defines a frenemy as "a person with whom one is friendly, despite a fundamental dislike or rivalry; a person who combines the characteristics of a friend and an enemy." Though not coined until mid-twentieth century, frenemies were much alive and in practice during the 19^th century, as evidenced in “Northanger Abbey.” Catherine Morland’s friendships with the Tilneys and Thorpes represent the differences between bona fide friends and frenemies.

The most predominant thing about a frenemy is it’s difficult to determine when someone is one, and is usually only realized after much drama and difficulties have transpired. When first introduced to Isabella Thorpe, Catherine Morland is captivated and swept away by Isabella’s intense devotion to her. And, while Catherine admires and respects Eleanor Tilney, her poise and sophistication are no match to Isabella’s guile and panache. And, all of it is a ruse, as both Thorpe siblings excel at manipulating situations to their advantage, always misdirecting events or outright lying. They appear worldly and calculating, a likely by-product of growing up under the auspices of their mother, who routinely prods and promotes them, in an effort to advance their family name and fortune by any means necessary. From John’s lie and carriage abduction, to Isabella’s pursuit of Captain Tilney, Catherine suffers handily, especially when John lies about her finances to General Tilney. The Tilneys, on the other hand, are grounded, accepting, and somehow seem to see through the Thorpes' shenanigans. Clearly these are learned behaviors; the Thorpes are the perverse converse to the Tilneys, a well-respected and reputable family.

The nature of fiction examines many facets of the lives depicted on the pages. Despite not being “real”, fictional stories ultimately reflect a reality of the experiences and the relationships in our own lives. Though considered a satire, “Northanger Abbey” also truly serves as a handbook of the tribulations of growing up. It bestows upon us the both the dark and light sides of friendship, imparting the ugly and bitter truths, with the welcome and agreeable truths, all of which ferment one’s constitution. When recognized and successfully traversed, a frenemy relationship ultimately guides us to our best selves.