Tarzan brought up another angle on the formula fiction debate. It certainly was a very exciting book, very plot based, and I see how the book can consider it formula fiction. Yet the copy that I own is published by Penguin Twentieth Century Classics and its genre on the back is literature. Hmm. Is it formula fiction just because it has a great plot? What about Tolkien?
The Joyce Carol Oates story was really great (especially the setting) but as contrasted with “Killings” it had no real plot, and the only semblance of plot (the interaction with Marilyn Monroe) was overshadowed by the fact that almost half of the story did not take place within that plot, and by the last line about the two girls’ first kiss. In contrast with Tarzan though, the former two stories felt much more real, they drew the reader into the story rather than just have them observe.
“A Rose for Emily” and ”Saving Sourdi” were also very real stories, both involving a substantial plot, but an interesting difference between the two was the perspective that the reader has of the characters. In “A Rose for Emily” we observe the main character through the eyes of an observer in the community, while in “Saving Sourdi” everything unfolds through the eyes of our protagonist, a young girl.
Melville’s story was something else altogether and I found it fascinating how he was able to turn such a boring person into such a fascinating character and make him the center of a gripping story. In this story Melville also used the perspective that Faulkner used in “A Rose” but (I thought) to much better effect, as the narrator was also an active participant in the plot and foil to the protagonist.
No comments:
Post a Comment