I noticed two significant things about this tale: 1) It seems to appeal to the visual culture again like some of the other Poe works. The images are not direct that the narrator is giving, but the reader can still imagin them. For instance he doesn't give eye color and hair color he gives types of clothes and demeanors of people, because it is what he can see from the window. While the narrator was standing in his room looking upon the crowd and giving descriptions of everyone, I could close my eyes and see what he was describing. I think that the careful choice of words and the calculations of the sentences make this tale force the reader to follow what the narrator does. I liked the descriptions and the images that the narrator was sharing with us. 2) At the end of the tale the narrator says, "This old man," I said at length, "is the type and the genius of deep crime. He refuses to be alone. He is the man of the crowd."(396) I think that in the way that the man of the crowd is described by the narrator, the narrator can identify with the man of the crowd. In a way the narrator could be a genius of crime seeing that he had followed this man around and wasn't even noticed. He also watches the crowd and knows everything about the way it moves, thinks and functions, therefore making him a genius of how to affect it. He also says that the man refuses to be alone, and I think that the narrator does to. He may stay in his room a lot and watch the crowd, but without that crowd he would probably go insane. It is like he lives for watching the crowd and studying how it works. In a sense, yes he is alone and confined, but he is only alone by distance and location, not by the people he associates with.
What do you think Poe was trying to achieve with his wonderful descriptions? I just loved them!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
When I read this story I thought of people watching, which is what the narrator is doing. With the narrator's descriptions, we see that he categorizes people, and passes judgment. I agree that this is a comment on visual culture, and more specifically the visual culture of the city. When I read this last semester, we talked about how this is a comment on the city. People watching is really only possible in a city. It's hard to do in a really small town because you already know everybody else's business.
Also, the narrator's original intention wasn't to watch what was going on in the city:
...I had been amusing myself for the greater part of the afternoon, now in poring over advertisements, now in observing the promiscuous company in the room, and now peering through the smoky panes in the street...I gave up, at length, all care of things within the hotel, and became absorbed in contemplation of the scene without (388-389). It's as if he is drawn to the activity/crowd of people on the street.
I also agree that the narrator is part of the crowd. Even if it seems like he is alone, he becomes part of the crowd just by watching/judging what is going on around him.
I like what you are saying about the suggestion that the people watching can only really take place in the city. I also agree with the passing judgement statement that you made. I hadn't thought of it like that, but the narrator really is judging everyone that he sees and we can conclude this because he knows nothing about them and still he describes them like he does. We can see that the man that he follows, once he finally thinks he has figured him out he says that "I shall learn no more of him, nor of his deeds." (396) It is like he is saying that once he knows one of them he can't say anything about that particular person anymore.
I like the ideas presented here. I think perhaps that this "man in the crowd" is an outsider, much like TD Eliot's Grizabella, wanting some kind of acceptance or some kind of confirmation that he is alive. He is in the crowd, but not of it, and that is a sad position to be in.
Corinne,
I liked your comments on this story. I read your post before I read the story so I was already colored by what you had said. You suggested:
"This old man," I said at length, "is the type and the genius of deep crime. He refuses to be alone. He is the man of the crowd."(396) I think that in the way that the man of the crowd is described by the narrator, the narrator can identify with the man of the crowd. In a way the narrator could be a genius of crime seeing that he had followed this man around and wasn't even noticed. (Corinne)
I've been asking my self why this is so, that is, why didn't the old man noticed his stalker.I came to the conclusion that both the old man and the narrator were crazy.
It's one thing to people watch and quite another to get up and follow someone all night and then confront him like the narrator did.
I also thought that perhaps Poe was showing off a bit with his descriptive abilities.
This is what good writers do- they observe every eye movement, every unusual pulse on the character they are imprinting into their consciousness. Poe was a master at this- my only negative comment on this story is that Poe's prejudice and sense of elitism shows through in his descriptions especially of the Jewish pedlars.
" Descending in the scale of what is termed gentility, I found darker and deeper themes for speculation. I saw Jew pedlars, with hawk eyes flashing from countenances whose every other feature wore only an expression of abject humility; (391) "
Like you I could easily visualize Poe's London scene, but while I was doing that I also felt that if I were sitting with the narrator that I would have come up with different characterizations of the people under Poe's biased gaze.
Thank you for pointing out the fact that Poe was portraying an elitist veiw point in this story. I knew there was something in his description that struck me as a little snobby or all knowing, but I couldn't pin point it. Elitism, yes, that the word!
Can we even trust this narrator? He did say that he was sick with an illness and was in a "peculiar mental state".
Post a Comment