A Dance to the Music of Time
discussion
Powell's genius is character creation
date
newest »
newest »
I have read this series and kept the books to reread. Very dense with characters that live.
"Dense" is an excellent word.
Your article on metaphor is very well done, I learned a great deal, Tim. And I don't want to create any spoilers (I realize this is nearly a year old now!), but Powell's narrator (whom I like to compare and contrast, in my mind, for my own purposes, with Proust) is, while somewhat a reticent character himself, as a writer/memoirist (I'm skittering around the question of whether Powell himself actually is, at least at times, the narrator), he is so outwardly turned toward those around him, so receptive and able to capture what makes each person unique. He describes them both physically and through their actions, even using their speech patterns, bodily movements, and to watch them move through the changing world is an amazing thing. And the metaphors, to paintings that are so evocative, are consistent, and just cry out to the reader.
And although we clearly sense, or I felt I clearly sensed, the narrator's emotional reactions to each character, there is yet a remove, which I think leaves room for the reader. Except when Proust is telling someone else's story, he rarely gets out of his own way, as a narrator, and judges most of his characters ruthlessly all along the way, at least that's my reaction. One can tire of the narrator (Proust) long before one tires of the characters of whom he writes. Or, at least, that is my personal reaction, I don't ask anyone to share it. I feel none of that with Powell.
Of course, and everyone knows this, I know, but there's a readership which (apparently rightly) associates Powell's characters with real life persons. I've never followed things like in regard to any writer with any great enthusiasm. I just enjoy reveling in the excellent writing and move on, without worrying about what character may be a take on John Galsworthy, for instance. But it is interesting to think that Powell was able (if he did, truly, which I don't believe he ever affirmed, but I gather it's pretty much believed to be true) write to some degree from life. That is all very interesting and a valid study, but always gave me, just personally, the feeling of "breaking the fourth wall."
As you mentioned, Tim, I'd rather think of someone as having a face one could see in an Old Master's drawing, that is so evocative and personal to me as a reader, I'd rather keep that sense of the character than use the internet to find out if a character is believed to have been based on someone in real life and trade the "Old Master's drawing" quality in the writing for a mere photograph. Does that make sense?
Your article on metaphor is very well done, I learned a great deal, Tim. And I don't want to create any spoilers (I realize this is nearly a year old now!), but Powell's narrator (whom I like to compare and contrast, in my mind, for my own purposes, with Proust) is, while somewhat a reticent character himself, as a writer/memoirist (I'm skittering around the question of whether Powell himself actually is, at least at times, the narrator), he is so outwardly turned toward those around him, so receptive and able to capture what makes each person unique. He describes them both physically and through their actions, even using their speech patterns, bodily movements, and to watch them move through the changing world is an amazing thing. And the metaphors, to paintings that are so evocative, are consistent, and just cry out to the reader.
And although we clearly sense, or I felt I clearly sensed, the narrator's emotional reactions to each character, there is yet a remove, which I think leaves room for the reader. Except when Proust is telling someone else's story, he rarely gets out of his own way, as a narrator, and judges most of his characters ruthlessly all along the way, at least that's my reaction. One can tire of the narrator (Proust) long before one tires of the characters of whom he writes. Or, at least, that is my personal reaction, I don't ask anyone to share it. I feel none of that with Powell.
Of course, and everyone knows this, I know, but there's a readership which (apparently rightly) associates Powell's characters with real life persons. I've never followed things like in regard to any writer with any great enthusiasm. I just enjoy reveling in the excellent writing and move on, without worrying about what character may be a take on John Galsworthy, for instance. But it is interesting to think that Powell was able (if he did, truly, which I don't believe he ever affirmed, but I gather it's pretty much believed to be true) write to some degree from life. That is all very interesting and a valid study, but always gave me, just personally, the feeling of "breaking the fourth wall."
As you mentioned, Tim, I'd rather think of someone as having a face one could see in an Old Master's drawing, that is so evocative and personal to me as a reader, I'd rather keep that sense of the character than use the internet to find out if a character is believed to have been based on someone in real life and trade the "Old Master's drawing" quality in the writing for a mere photograph. Does that make sense?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
What do you think?