I would like to maintain that I was a little disappointed, or at the very least perplexed by one thing in our class discussions, this week and last, and that was the general sentiment around me of disapproval of the unrealistic aspects of Narrative of A.G.P.
Professor Harrison is right to point out that I am taking a French interpretative approach; so much so that before he even mentioned it I just started to remember The Little Prince, because grownups just don’t understand! All of you, I now sadly suspect.
Basically, just because it said at the beginning that it was true, does this mean for us at home here in VA, (also the home of Poe himself, please regard) that it has to appear realistic in order to be more valuable?
RSVP, tell me your reasons why it is that it matters whether or not certain parts of this narrative need to be there. Other than the fact that it takes up our time to read about hatchets that are picked up then tossed aside, or descriptions of penguins and Islanders, is there a good reason why something particularly shouldn’t be there? Because if it is in there, then I guess Poe had his reason for it, (which we are left to interpret).
Also, during our discussions I recall discussions of days past, at the beginning of the semester we wondered to ourselves if Poe wrote what he thought people wanted to read, or was it what he wanted to write. Did Poe write what he wanted others to read?
I would write a Narrative adventure story of getting lost at Sea, and stranded on a deserted
3 comments:
Patricia,
I think that we should be asking the meaning behind the aspects of the narrative that we find useless and/or bothersome. Saying whether or not something should/should not be there doesn't really get us anywhere. It's already in the text, so we need to examine why it's there/what it means.
The unrealistic parts of the narrative didn't really bother me. From a plot standpoint, it made the narrative more entertaining and readable. I wouldn't say that the unrealistic parts of the narrative diminish it's value. I also don't necessarily think that calling something a narrative implies that it is going to be true. If someone is telling their story, it is going to be embellished and exaggerated, especially if it is being told from memory.
I think we don't like the history/science because it doesn't do anything to enhance the plot. And, as English majors, it is hard for us to find meaning in those aspects, which is problematic.
To answer your question about Poe writing what he wanted vs. writing what other people wanted to read, I think he did a little bit of both. If you want to make a living out of writing, you're going to have to "give the people what they want." I don't think this is a bad thing. But, you also need to keep what you want in your writing. If what you're writing isn't what the current marketplace wants, but you put it out there anyway, then you are not going to be very successful (in the money sense). You might feel successful in the sense that you didn't compromise, but you can't live on that success. I think Poe struggled with this, and maybe this narrative is a symbol of that. It didn't give some of us what we wanted, so we consider it a failure.
Particia,
I fear that you misinterpreted my standpoint on the plot of this Narrative. It was not the unrealistic aspects of the piece that I found disappointing but rather his utter loss of a plot. Poe seems to have lost control of this narrative in many aspects, and I’m trying to decipher whether he has done this on purpose as some odd commentary, or whether he simply could not sustain a longer Narrative. Somehow, I tend to lean towards the latter. Poe’s inclusion of unrealistic plot/characters/information helps make this Narrative bearable and also what makes is distinctly "Poe".
Please don't misunderstand me and think that what I've said is directed at anyone in particular. I noticed several members of our class echoing the same sentiment over last Thursday's and Tuesday's classes.
Post a Comment