Don't get me wrong, I love Barnes' writing, but his intellectual philosophy lacks thoughtful insight and is not very stimulating. I love the "straight-up" nature of his syntax but all too often the reader finds Barnes to be anazlyzing Flaubert or some critic rather than elaborating on ideas of his own. I find this to be a serious flaw. In my opinion, in order for a book to be considered a novel the author must, at one point or another, convey his or her intellect through philosophical thoughts. Barnes either skips that step, and simply delves into some else's life or provides the reader with an irrelevant idea.
In no way do I dislike Flaubert's Parrot, as the organization of Flaubert's genius thoughts, through masterfully strung together sentences, is impeccablly interesting. But in no way does this make Barnes a great writer or an interesting one. Its nice to read strong sentences but without interesting philosophies there is no stimulus and a novel becomes ineffective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I understand where you are coming from, but i believe that Barns' lack of an imposing belief is what makes his underlying messages and belief more potent, and but analyzing others he can transmit them is a more interesting manner.
ha sorry about last comment; spelling error that I couldn't fix.
anyway, back to the point. I think it's important to notice that this isn't Barnes in the book; this is a character he has created. So maybe the character Barnes is trying to portray doesn't have enough confidence or knowledge to make his own ideas, so he uses others.
Post a Comment