The epistolary form parallels the uncertainty of the social
and political future of France. We
previously discussed the inability to trust some characters because of the use
of the epistolary form in the novel, yet I believe the chaos of the character’s
surroundings is exposed in the letters in the second and third volumes. There are at least three instances in
which a character refers to a letter that was not printed in the novel. I was curious to why these letters were
not included in the novel. Was there
information in them that the receiver intended to conceal? Was the letter deemed
insignificant? The privacy of the
letter is called into question. To
begin with, there are multiple instances in which a letter was enclosed in
another letter. Moreover,
some of the letters are dictated meaning some of the information may have been
censored. Thirdly, the length of
time it took for the letter to travel from the sender to the receiver leaves
the characters insecure and leaves me, as the reader, suspicious. I believe that
there is an unmistakable uncertainty that is evoked from the absence of
information. In the end, the
epistolary form leaves me uncomfortable and anxious.
I felt this same sort of anxiety as the instances of "*Which do not appear" increased through the second and third volumes. Considering the amount of information and characterization contained within each letter, I felt as if important details could be missing and thus affecting my reading experience. Perhaps Smith employs this technique consciously in an effort to force the reader to consider possibilities of characterization beyond that which is explicitly presented in the letters.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that someone else felt a sense of anxiety from the absence of letters in the second and third volumes. I did not think about Smith intentionally suggesting characterization outside of the letters. I think, as a novice epistolary reader, I get caught up in the keeping track of the small details such as the events, the location of the characters, the sender and recipient, etc. that I may miss the bigger picture. I sometimes forget that the characters have lives outside of what they write down on paper. This causes me to be even more weary as I begin to wonder what is not being said. Maybe Geraldine has more emotions than she is able to share with Fanny, or maybe Desmond has a stronger opinion about the revolution. This ties back into our conversation from class last Tuesday about the strongest action is not what is being said, but instead, it is what is being done. As a reader, I should become more in tune to what the sender says they are going to do and what they actually do in order to understand their deeper, inner emotions.
ReplyDelete