If "Ellen's story is a true story", then why is Braithwaite telling us Flaubert's story instead? (86)
In my opinion I think that Braithwaite is telling us Flaubert's story vs. Ellen's story because of the emotional connections that he has with both. Flaubert's story is one of interest, however, for Braithwaite it holds little emotional connection. On the other hand, Ellen is someone that he personally has come into contact with, therefore telling her story may be emotionally more difficult. Take a story that you hear on the news, if you hear about a child being kidnapped, you are less emotionally attached, as if it would have been your own child. People find ways of sheltering themselves from emotional turmoil, and as for Braithwaite telling Flaubert's story rather then Ellen's he is saving himself from traveling into a sorrowful state.
In addition to this, Julian Barnes states that readers are always expecting a story out of the writer, like they are supposed to open their story up to the reader. (pg. 86) By telling Flauberts story rather then Ellen's he is keeping his personal secrets concealed. As he is doing by having the character of Braithwaite narrate. If he himself were to narrate then he would have to open himself up to us as an open book, he would be required to state his opinions and personal experiences. However, we (being the reader) are unaware of whether or not he is telling his stories though Braithwaite, which in return makes the reader question the possibilities and desire to continue to read. I may just be confusing myself, and everything that i have just said could prove to be incredibly incorrect. I have found this book to be a tangled web of utter confusion, but that may be the aspect that keeps me reading. Most of the book, I am unaware of what Barnes is trying to tell us, however, here and there he throws in certain analogies that requires you to think, which as a whole are interesting concepts. As of now, I'm not sure of what my opinion of this book is...but it is an interesting read at least. :?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Ellen is someone that he personally has come into contact with, therefore telling her story may be emotionally more difficult." Actually, I have to lean the other way, while I agree with maybe the reason for him not telling Ellen's story is that he is more emotionally attached to one story than the other, I think he is more attached to Flaubert's story. As he said earlier, he'd had all those friends that had died in D-day and he didn't feel a thing. But then when he found Flaubert's parrot, he was much more emotionally aroused.
Despite finding the book a 'tangled web of confusion', you seem to have a pretty good reason for Braithwaite focusing on Emma (and Flaubert) rather than Ellen (and his own life, which itself, of course, is a fiction). Is this something like the action of a metaphor--the way we try and figure one thing out by looking not at it, but at another thing? I wonder. As Kirk points out, Why does the sight of Flaubert's parrot (which may not even be the real one) trigger an emotional response when the sight of the beach where all his buddies died does not?
Good post. I think you've got a better handle on this book than you realize.
Post a Comment