I apologize for the long subject line. I didn't have the time
to make it shorter.
Mark suggests that Conrad is a better exemplar of the truly
effective short book by virtue of the subtlety of his
symbolism:
>I would not use Old Man and the Sea as my example (if
I were going to the
classics, I'd probably choose >Heart of Darkness).
and continues (speaking of OLD MAN)
>I always thought the reason this book was so popular
among high school
English teachers was
>because the symbolism was so overt, knocked you over
the head, that no
student could possibly miss it
Ahem. Now then. I consider OLD MAN a masterpiece, but hardly
for the symbolism. (Symbolism is, in any case, an 19th
century device that has no relevance to modern, or even 20th
century, fiction.) OLD MAN is an opera, a saga of human
determination and its limits. Its strength, and its value as
literature, lies there.
Ahem again. To call HEART OF DARKNESS, which every student of
literature has been clouted repeatedly over the head with --
by the English teachers Mark so rightfully disdains -- in the
hope that he (or she) will come to understand what symbolism
is, subtler in any way than OLD MAN is to reveal a paucity of
understanding, or even experience. Conrad was arguably the
most ham-handed of "classic" (specious term, anyway)
novelists. Let's get real. The rusting machinery, the rot,
the increasing claustrophobia. Subtlety indeed. Grace
objectified.
Hem was a body puncher, and nobody every accused him of
subtlety, but even he could have made a better job of HEART
than Conrad did. I mean, shit! You ever read that book? The
best thing that can be said about it is that it's not as bad
as THE SECRET SHARER or -- horrors -- NOSTROMO.
Read OLD MAN again. Carefully. Then tell me ANY Conrad even
belongs on the same shelf with OLD MAN.
Betcha can't. PB
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 02 Mar 2000 EST