narrative lies
Mar. 23rd, 2011 04:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
devonmeyerOkay so reading the first half of Dawn I've literally only circled one word. I try to lose myself in a story when I know it's going to be good, meaning I have little mind to circle and underline and highlight, but on the very first page... Here it is again-- something that has come up in every single thing that we've read in this class:
"It had occurred to her-- how many times-- that she might be insane or drugged, physically ill or injured" (Butler 1).
This brings me back, first of all, to "Woman on the Edge of Time," where the entire novel is called into question by the fact that the protagonist, though we tend to try and believe her side of the story, is actually in a mental health clinic. She's been characterized as insane by several doctors-- how can we honestly be expected to believe what she writes?
Then we go to "Brave New World"-- the novel on which I'm writing my seminar paper. It also happens to be this exact same subject: How can we believe a word that Huxley says if he doesn't even give us a view of this 'brave new world' from the perspective of the Epsilons? How can we take his word that the Epsilons shouldn't be subjugated if he doesn't even have the ganache to make one of the pivotal characters of the story an Epsilon.
Then we move to "Never Let Me Go" where the entire story is about the donors. Of course we're going to think that their plight is terrible if we see their childhood and their college-ish experiences. But what about the lives that they save? Why isn't that the highlighted part?
And then here we have, within the first page of Dawn, while Butler is creating an ethos, the validity of the entire novel completely called into question by the fact that we don't know if the protagonist is even in a right state of mind.
And this brings me to Battlestar Galactica (I've still been obsessing over it in recent days)-- The reason that its ideas are valid is because it considers the perspectives of both sides: human and Cylon. Obviously the Cylons are portrayed in a negative light, especially at first glance, but once we are introduced to life within the Cylon base ship, things start to change.
I feel like these novelists are missing the point: the best way to make a point involves using a counterpoint as evidence of its own faultiness. Gah, it just makes me so angry because these novels are so great in every other facet but within a chapter I find myself questioning whether or not I should even care about what I end up thinking the 'message' of the novel is!
But then again, I'm incredulous.
"It had occurred to her-- how many times-- that she might be insane or drugged, physically ill or injured" (Butler 1).
This brings me back, first of all, to "Woman on the Edge of Time," where the entire novel is called into question by the fact that the protagonist, though we tend to try and believe her side of the story, is actually in a mental health clinic. She's been characterized as insane by several doctors-- how can we honestly be expected to believe what she writes?
Then we go to "Brave New World"-- the novel on which I'm writing my seminar paper. It also happens to be this exact same subject: How can we believe a word that Huxley says if he doesn't even give us a view of this 'brave new world' from the perspective of the Epsilons? How can we take his word that the Epsilons shouldn't be subjugated if he doesn't even have the ganache to make one of the pivotal characters of the story an Epsilon.
Then we move to "Never Let Me Go" where the entire story is about the donors. Of course we're going to think that their plight is terrible if we see their childhood and their college-ish experiences. But what about the lives that they save? Why isn't that the highlighted part?
And then here we have, within the first page of Dawn, while Butler is creating an ethos, the validity of the entire novel completely called into question by the fact that we don't know if the protagonist is even in a right state of mind.
And this brings me to Battlestar Galactica (I've still been obsessing over it in recent days)-- The reason that its ideas are valid is because it considers the perspectives of both sides: human and Cylon. Obviously the Cylons are portrayed in a negative light, especially at first glance, but once we are introduced to life within the Cylon base ship, things start to change.
I feel like these novelists are missing the point: the best way to make a point involves using a counterpoint as evidence of its own faultiness. Gah, it just makes me so angry because these novels are so great in every other facet but within a chapter I find myself questioning whether or not I should even care about what I end up thinking the 'message' of the novel is!
But then again, I'm incredulous.
