Hi, I posted this on BoS too (I figure past Lit students would be more likely to see it there). I was wondering if anyone had any constructive criticsm of this lit essay I wrote, and maybe a suggested score out of 20 too? Thanks.
----------------------------------------------
Through the sequence of Sugar and Other Stories, Byatt traces the Bildungsroman of the writer, which essentially acts as a metaphor for the lifespan. Byatt works from rebellion and the overcoming of institutional oppression to education and exploration of the limitations associated with writing. Ultimately, however, these limitations are accepted and there is reconciliation between the self ? the creator ? with the inherently flawed process of writing. Byatt, through her metanarrative, exposes and overcomes the limitations of the creative process in order to celebrate and affirm the power of writing and creativity.
In the first two passages, Byatt utilises the technique of ?free direct discourse? in her narrative. In this, the thoughts of the narrator and the thoughts of the character mingle and the dichotomy between what is truth and what is judgement or conjecture ? that is, what has been fictionalised by the character ? becomes blurred. An example of this appears in passage two where the narrator informs the reader that ?the subject of Josephine?s writing was fear? but it is unclear to the reader as to whether or not this is true. Other events in ?The Changeling? tend to indicate that Josephine has more tangible muses for her storytelling than the merely abstract ?fear?. This leads readers to question the reliability of the narrative. This technique conflates objective truth and subjectivity which is reflective of the content of the passages, and indeed the entire sequence. It is dealt with as being a limitation of storytelling, or, as in ?Sugar?, of living.
The absence of free direct discourse in the collection?s title story, ?Sugar? is indicative of Byatt?s acceptance that subjectivity is inherent within the storytelling process. As a result of this the narrator is unaware of her personal history, of the divide between actualised events and myth. The choice to tell the story though use of first person not only reflects her own interiority in a sequence that is autobiographical in the sense that it spans one?s life but is also a celebration of the short-comings of creativity ? the nature of storytelling is essentially a subjective one, rife with embellishments and personal judgements. It so follows that an ?objective?, third person narration will fail to be so because personal opinion will invariably taint the supposed ?truth? that the narrative attempts to create and this is seen through the unreliable judgements that manifest themselves throughout the remainder of the sequence.
In the first passage, the failure of writing resides in the inability to discern between what is true antagonism and cause of rebellion and what is simply misunderstood care. In the setting of her school, Emily is oppressed by Miss Crichton-Walker, who represents the ?tablecloth? ? the promotion of mundane tasks as ?important?; Emily?s ?covering? and oppressive force. In the passage, Emily continues to feel an ?antagonism? from Sarah?s school as she did her own, but it is unclear if this antagonism is manufactured by Emily. The speech of Sarah?s deputy principal is reminiscent to that of Miss Crichton-Walker, and there are no inverted commas to mark the passage of dialogue in the story. This is suggestive of an indirect remodelling of the events that took place from Emily?s point of view, rather than true event and a tendency to generalise institutions as being a ?tablecloth? on one?s personal wishes. The weakness, then, of writing is one?s inability to discern truth from what is fictionalised.
The generic Bildungsroman that guides the sequence of short stories is demanding of early rebellion during the ?childhood? stage, which is certainly marked by ?Racine and the Tablecloth?. Though, in a metafictional manner, this stage of rebellion itself may be a manufactured one, purely for aesthetic purposes. Sarah?s deputy head asks ?perhaps you could trust us?? which indicates to the reader that perhaps these schools do attempt to achieve what is in the best interests of the individual. Perhaps then, rebellion is unnecessary and the need to effect it is through invented antagonism. Such antagonism is romantic and canon for the genre of the Bildungroman. The autobiography ? particularly in these early stages ? is constructed in order to create a story of interest and dramatic structures.
The story telling as exposed by ?The Changeling? targets the ethical demands and limitations put upon writing by the events of real life. When encountered with an individual that resembles a character in her novel, Josephine shows no real sympathy toward him and her creativity is temporarily halted by his existence. Josephine writes in a ?Jamesian? manner in which characters are not ?let off? and experience the ?felt life? which is essentially difficult and of dramatic interest. Henry then, is an ?inconvenience? because his presence is Josephine?s supposed creativity manifesting itself in real life with uncomfortable implications. Byatt emphasises that it is unfair for writer?s to describe the lives of real people so accurately, yet refuse to offer sympathy and, in fact, disregard sympathy in pursuit of drama. It is irresponsible to exploit subjects and embellish the truth so that life itself is scary simply for dramatic aesthetic. Henry?s suicide can act as further inspiration for Josephine as a practical loss but an aesthetic gain. And for Byatt, this is unacceptable.
The third passage is an ultimate acceptance of writing?s limitation. This passage utilises the imagery of sweet manufacturing as a metaphor for the creation of a story. That narrator?s grandfather remarks that the colour of the sweets are not determined by what makes up the ingredients because it is all ?exactly the same? but it is ?the air? that determines the colour. This is a reference to Byatt?s earlier story ?In The Air? where personal perception alters the way one lives. The world in which two people live in is the same, yet it is personal subjectivity which allows them to ?colour? their world in different tones.
Further, the narrator describes how she embellishes her excursion to the sweet factory in her own story. The colours were ?emerald?; like ?spun glass?. It effectively changes the experience of her visit to the factory, but this is acceptable. ?Words were there to be used?.
Whilst writing and creativity pose ethical issues and limitations on what can be deemed to be truth or fiction, Byatt ultimately puts forth that this subjectivity is an inherent part of writing ? or even life ? that one must accept to develop through the lifespan.
Home
Help
Search
Login
