Sunday, November 4, 2007

Style of MacKenzie

Each of the novels that we have read so far presents a history of a fictional character, and each author has a unique style. However, although the authors differ in the way they write, they all present various difficulties for a 21st century reader. Richardson's epistolary style was problematic because we found out that Pamela is virtuous because she constantly told us that she is. Fielding's style was a different challenge because his narrative digressions deliberately distract us from the story by reminding us that we are reading a work of fiction. MacKenzie's fragmented style is another issue simply because I am used to reading a narrative that is continuous and complete. My theory for why he chose this style is that true history is fragmented and incomplete, and also because it allows MacKenzie to consisely divulge what is necessary in order to understand the moral. I was moved by the character Harley, and I feel that MacKenzie's moral is sound. Harley has compassion for individuals that most of society either overlooks or despises, from prostitutes to the victims of imperialism. Harley recognizes everyone in society, he even has tears for the mentally ill. I do not think this book is overly dramatic, instead I believe that it addresses serious issues in a touching way.

1 comment:

Lilia Ford said...

I think you are asking the right questions: Assuming that we are not the kind of reader who believes that this is somehow a "real" collection of papers, "discovered" by an editor, the book demands that we address the question why use this style? (The style does not seem to me calculated to deceive, that is, done from purely "realist" motives.) The reader is forced into a thoughtful confrontation with the book's themes and meditation on how the form might shed light on the subject matter. Another question raised by your comment is this: how interested is Mackenzie in creating a character in the sense we usually use the word--a unique, individualized, "round" character full of complexity and depth? I am not sure what I think here; perhaps I am just not the right reader--I don't "get" Harley, or perhaps Mackenzie had other priorities.