Post 7 f’real.

Alright, sorry for the delay. I can finally breathe now that a few midterms are over.

So, what I kinda want to discuss briefly is sort of a continuation of that we were talking about in class about C. Temple. I didn’t bring it up in class, because I knew it would be a pretty rad post, so I saved it.

The idea of the author breaking narrative: I don’t like it. At all. Breaking the narrative is a big no, even if you are trying to preemptively defend things you’re doing in the book. Have an afterword or something to do your defending, because I don’t want to be taken out of the story at all. Not only does it take the reader out of the narrative, but it also dumbs down the audience and reflects poorly on how she views her own writing ability. It’s as if she has no confidence in getting her point across transparently so she has to spell it out for us. Maybe I would feel different back in the day it was written, but I can’t change my 21st century mindset. I would actually like to read a version without the asides, just to see how it compares.

Not sure how rad that turned out to be, but it’s kinda a pet peeve when author does that, especially for argumentative reasons than reasons dealing with the realm of the story.

Brian