Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Limits of Epistolary Form
I was struck in reading both Lady Susan and Desmond by the limits that the epistolary form places on the author in telling the story. Given that each character must have a reason to write a letter, I found it interesting that the principal characters are always separated by some great distance, in order to keep the flow of communication going. However, as in Lady Susan, a plot line may not be resolvable through letters if the characters no longer have distant friends to relay their thoughts. Thus, Austen adopts an omniscient narrator at the end of her novella in order to detail the conclusion of her story. In Desmond, I noted that because the letters are the thoughts of one character to another, many details were left out. I wondered where Waverly was, and why Bethel did not write more. I hope that these gaps in the letters will be shortly explained in the coming letters. I look forward to seeing how Smith concludes her novel as well, and if she is able to conclude her plot within the epistolary form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I have read further into Desmond I keep remembering this limit of the epistolary novel you have pointed out. It is so convenient that Bethel goes to Bath when Desmond is considering returning to England. It seems to me that Bethel would want to stay in England to meet his dear friend, but Smith cannot allow that to happen or who would Desmond write to? The same for Geraldine and her sister, Fanny. I think it is an interesting paradox that for the story to continue the main characters must keep a certain amount of physical distance and limit their personal interactions to letters.
ReplyDeleteI also notice this, but thought it was also interesting how when Geraldine and Desmond were together in the end, they both wrote their accounts to Fanny and Bethel. Even though some of the characters were in the same place, Smith ensured that the readers would still receive both sides of the story.
Delete