Reading "The Man of Feeling" was at times a bizarre experience. Due to the novel's fragmentation I often felt like I was reading the journal of a frequent user of acid (ironically, even more so then when I read "On the Road"). The novel was occasionally incoherent and more often a little confusing. I tried my best while reading to be open to feeling for Harley, but the format of the novel definitely didn't help me.
However, after reading the novel I realized why Mackenzie used such an unusual format. I don't believe Mackenzie's intent was to purely make a sentimental novel. It was more to create a discussion on morality (at least that's what I hope). If he had used a more attached format (such as a consistent first or third person) I probably would have felt more sympathetic towards Harley, but I wouldn’t have questioned the various morals displayed in the novel as much. I don't think this book was meant to be a tearjerker. By using a detached view to show a plethora of unusual (and not black and white) occurrences, Mackenzie forced me to question the situations in the book and my own beliefs. Is living a life of "feeling" worth it? What role does greed play in our society? What should you value the most: money, love, friendship or honesty? I may not have felt for Harley while reading, but I definitely felt something. More importantly, I questioned. In the end, my guess is that "The Man of Feeling" will be my least favorite novel to read, but the one I enjoy discussing the most.
It's funny, because I watched the film "The Searchers” tonight with my dad, which has some similarities to the novel. From the outside (especially now) the film can appear racist, sexist and just plain old fashioned. However, when you look closer many of the perceived offensive characters and events are meant to ask questions, not just perpetrate stereotypes. "The Man of Feeling" is very much the same. To only explicitly read the novel is to not do it justice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Excellent comment. You articulate the interpretative problem very clearly. I agree with you--I think that he is trying to ask questions and provoke debate. I don't think Mackenzie has an uncritical relationship to "sentimentality." Your list of questions would serve in his time and ours--they concern basic values and priorities. But...we do have to try to understand those readers who read it "straight"--as a celebration of what today we would call the "sensitive soul"--that reading is implicit in the book and although it may not be to my personal taste, as a form of nascent youth culture, it had a wider cultural and even political significance--it was a manifestation of rebelliousness by women and others who were shut out from traditional routes to power.
Post a Comment