December the Second Post

The Importance of the Narrator -- How Do the Narrator's Comments Affect the Reader's Experience?

"With the Gardiners, they were always on the most intimate terms. Darcy, as well as Elizabeth, really loved them; and they were both ever sensible of the warmest gratitude towards the persons who, by bringing her into Derbyshire, had been the means of uniting them." -- Austen, Pride and Prejudice, page

"Juxtaposed against the clipped conversation, this description announces the omniscient narrator's analytic seriousness, showing us that the novel will not be concerned simply with presenting surface appearances but will scrutinize its characters' essential qualities. To read such a complex, intimate appraisal of a character so early in a novel is jarring -- the reader is forced to pause and try to figure out what it means to describe a human being as a "mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humor, reserve and caprice." . . . But we also have to slow down because of what the language is describing, because of the startling way in which the narrator presents a human being, encapsulating such a complicated person in only ten words when "three and twenty years" is insufficient to reveal his "character" to his wife. The formal qualities of the sentence are a reflection of the narrator's insistence on accurately presenting the inner nature of Mr. Bennet's character." -- Woloch, The One vs. The Many, page 50

I focused on this section of Woloch particularly because I'm interested in how different points of views in novels affect the reader's experience and comprehension -- for instance, I want to investigate this in my final paper, because both Sterne and Defoe present their novels through a first person narrative that is structured similarly to streams of consciousness. Is this more or less representative of real life than narrating through a third person? Why do authors decide to do either in the first place? What is their intent?
I also found Woloch's explanation of such a "jarring" experience for the reader (when the narrator makes such a flippant "appraisal" of a "complicated person"), although he just spent the prior pages saying how Elizabeth Bennet operates within a network of minor, "lesser" characters to promote her own worth. What exactly does it insinuate that the narrator provides us as readers with such a concise description of this character, while it doesn't elucidate others? Is our intelligence doubted? Or, does Austen just want to focus more on developing other, more important characters? The latter seems most plausible to me. Either way, I feel that the most interesting aspect of this passage was the comment on and appraisal of the reader's reaction, especially in light of Zunshine's work, and that recent study on empathy as influenced by fiction. What kind of narrative and rhetorical tricks make the human brain respond?

November the Twenty Fifth Post

Does Money Buy Happiness?

" . . . But it does capture nicely how well the emerging commercial economies of the eighteenth century coincided with the new ethics of pleasure announced by Locke and his many continental admirers. By buying and selling luxury items and services with the explicit aim of enhancing pleasure and reducing pain, men and women pursued happiness in the manner that both Locke and Hobbes had described -- as a 'continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter.' " --McMahon, Happiness: A History, page 206

" . . . But his friend Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mein; and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year." - Austen, Pride and Prejudice, page 49


In regards to the question above, it certainly appears to be the case. Notice how the room as a collective unit appreciates Mr. Darcy much more than Mr. Bingley, the friendly gentleman, after the knowledge circulated that Darcy makes much more than Bingley. This is a theme in a myriad of eighteenth and nineteenth century novels, especially in regards to single women looking for prospects. I found it incredibly interesting how McMahon paralleled the emergence of happiness with the growing economy. It's fascinating how aspects of life intersect. What is it about money that makes us happy? It would seem to me to be the stability. It certainly makes sense in regards to the aforementioned single women, who weren't able to make a living for themselves. There's an interesting quote from Luce Irigaray, a French feminist, speaking on how since women were more or less seen as the "scene of rival exchange" between men, it made sense that these goods were unable to relate to other such goods on the market with anything other than "aggressive jealousy." Even something as complex as a human being can be reduced into economic terms.

November the Eighteenth Post

What Signs Exist to Indicate Intention in a Novel?

"We all learn, whether consciously or not, that the default interpretation of behavior reflects a character's state of mind, and every fictional story that we read reinforces our tendency to make that kind of assumption first.

It seems to me that our unease on this occasion stems from our intuitive realization that on some level our evolved cognitive architecture indeed does not fully distinguish between real and fictional people." -- Lisa Zunshine, pages 4 & 19, Why We Read Fiction

This is one of the questions that I'll be exploring in my research paper on attention and interest, especially with how a reader can follow along a character's often unspoken mental track. Zunshine's whole article on cognitive psychology and theory of mind is extremely interesting, and I'm hoping to be able to check it out to see if it will have relevance to my particular topic. Last semester, I took a Neuroscience of Child Development course, and we actually spent a fair amount of time on theory of mind, as well as reading Simon Baren-Cohen's articles. To read this article was a very nice refresher, and got me excited thinking about continuing study in a similar area. For instance, there is a point in Tristram Shandy when he laments how long it will take him to write his life story, especially since he was already at four volumes and still hadn't been born yet. How familiar would this feel to a college student at final exam time? The reader knows, intrinsically, because of their own theory of mind, that he is lamenting the brevity of time when faced with a daunting task. It is moments like these that I would like to investigate.

November the Eleventh Post

Representation of Madness: How Did Sex Affect Diagnosis?

"The illness of 'the Spleen', characterized by moodiness, irritability, depression and nightmares, was prevalent, even fashionable, at the beginning of the century, and Anne Finch was a notable sufferer. Its alternative name, 'the Vapours', linked it to the melancholy humour whose mists the organ of the spleen was meant to dispel. In the grip of 'the Spleen' imagination tended to function in neurotic, unstable and self-deceiving ways, and Finch's lively diagnosis exploits these possibilities." -- Anne Finch, page 22

"The nature of his mental problems cannot be diagnosed with certainty, but there may have been violent mood swings ('For I have a greater compass both of mirth and melancholy than another', he says in Jubilate Agno, I32); one unstable element was a religious fervour that caused him to pray loudly in public places whenever the need took him." -- Christopher Smart, page 426

I find it extremely interesting that the descriptions of these instabilities differ depending on which sex they're referring to. It seems like Smart's illness is seen as more plausible or credible, while Finch's is referred to in the context of being "fashionable." It reminded me of the origin of "hysteria" ( side note: what if my paper was on the nature//history of hysteria? That could incorporate my feminist literary theory class as well, aka I have a little more background//I've been primed to note instances of inequality. At the very least, would it be implausible to treat that as my presentation topic Thursday? ), especially with how it was typically seen as a women's disease. Silly uterus, making women crazy! Also, the reference to the four humors was intriguing. Finding out when that myth was dispelled would be a compelling subject, as well.

November the Fourth Post

"Satire shou'd, like a polish'd Razor keen,
Wound with a Touch, that's scarcely felt or seen.
Thine is an Oyster-Knife, that hacks and hews;
The Rage, but not the Talent to Abuse; . . .
Sure 'tis as fair to beat who cannot fight,
As 'tis to libel those who cannot write."
-- Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, "Verses Address'd to the Imitator of Horace," pages 189-90

"and that women, in particular, are rendered weak and wretched by a variety of concurring causes . . . . One cause of this barren blooming I attribute to a false system of education, gathered from the books written on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures, have been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers; and the understanding of the sex has been so bubbled by this specious homage, that the civilized women of the present century, with a few exceptions, are only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect." -- Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, page 258

Final Paper Proposal

For my final research paper, I'd like to investigate the connection or relationship between boredom, interest and attention//distraction. I'd like to look at Robinson Cruseo and Tristram Shandy, particularly in how Cruseo meticulously quantitifies everything on his island, and marks his time religiously. As to Tristram Shandy, I would look for instances when he attempts to organize his thoughts. How the brain quantitifies and organizes things is of particular interest, and I'm hoping to find evidence for these things in these novels. 

October the Twenty Eighth Post

What Triggers Increased Cognitive Awareness, Represented Through Time?

"In the year one thousand seven hundred and eighteen, when this happened, it was extremely difficult; so that when my uncle Toby discovered the transverse zig-zaggery of my father's approaches towards it, it instantly brought into his mind those he had done duty in, before the gate of St. Nicolas;—the idea of which drew off his attention so intirely from the subject in debate, that he had got his right hand to the bell to ring up Trim to go and fetch his map of Namur, and his compasses and sector along with it, to measure the returning angles of the traverses of that attack,—but particularly of that one, where he received his wound upon his groin. . . .
Any man, I say, Madam, but my uncle Toby, the benignity of whose heart interpreted every motion of the body in the kindest sense the motion would admit of, would have concluded my father angry, and blamed him too. My uncle Toby blamed nothing but the taylor who cut the pocket-hole;—so sitting still till my father had got his handkerchief out of it, and looking all the time up in his face with inexpressible good-will—my father, at length, went on as follows." -- Sterne, Tristram Shandy, pages 114 and 116

"Time, with all its celerity, moves slowly to him whose whole employment is to watch its flight." -- Johnson, The Idler No. 21

The amount of time that is spent describing how Walter Shandy reaches into his jacket pocket, and how much time is said to pass while Toby is observing it, recalled this quote of Samuel Johnson's. It's interesting how one specific act so captures the attention of Tristram's uncle, and leads him to a completely unrelated association. Of course, any question of attention, whether divided or not, and related distractions are interesting in the context of this . . . novel. Thing. Especially when Tristram acknowledges how long it is taking him to write his autobiography, and how the pacing will quickly overwhelm him, he advertises the celerity of time when a man is anticipating something, which is intriguing when contrasted to how slowly time is said to move when one is completely engrossed in something. It's a mess of contradictions. The central question that this raises, for me, is the question of perception. How did people perceive time? Were they like me, and they simply cannot fit everything they wish to accomplish in a day, a week, a lifetime? The Idler was particularly enlightening with this, especially since I identified with it. For how much I stress over being so busy, I can't imagine being idle. Stagnation is to deteriorate. 

October the Twenty First Post

What Constitutes "Memory"?

"And who, of all mean in the world, troubled his brain the least with abstruse thinking;  ---the ideas of time and space, --- or how we came by those ideas, --- or of what stuff they were made, --- or whether they were born with us, --- or we pick'd them up afterwards as we went along, -- or whether we did it in frocks, --- or not till we had got into breeches, ---- with a thousand other inquiries and disputes about infinity, presence, liberty, necessity, and so forth . . ." -- Sterne, Tristram Shandy, page 138

"One accomplishment which seems always to have been greatly admired by both ancient and medieval writers was the ability to recite a text backwards as well as forwards, or to skip around in it in a systematic way, without becoming lost or confused. The ability to do this marked the difference between merely being able to imitate something (to reproduce it by rote) and really knowing it, being able to recall it in various ways." -- Carruthers, The Book of Memory, page 21

The historical reading for this week was exceptionally interesting, mostly because I am most fascinated by memory, as well as the distinction between memory and reminiscence. Immediately when I read my quote from that piece, I thought of Tristram Shandy and how he skips around his narrative, yet always brings his tale back full circle to continue the story. In general, it is just an interesting read with its ideas on Locke, the progression of time, and of course the distraction of the mind. It's difficult to read it without becoming distracted one's self, though one can usually just settle into a skimming mode. How that affects retention of the book remains to be seen.