So the title is a little bit dramatic, and I don't actually think the book sucks.
I think hate can stem from ignorance, a lack of understanding. That in mind, I hate (not think sucks) Tristram Shandy. This is because I don't understand it! I cannot pay attention to the narration, often wondering what I should make for dinner or what I should wear to the party tonight.
Cue awesome transition/lightbulb!
This week's readings on attention and scientific study of that phenomenon is perfect for self-diagnosis! My question I will attempt to answer in this blog post is: What about Tristram Shandy hinders my (and other readers') ability to pay attention to the narration? And maybe, just maybe, I will not hate it so much.
My initial thought is that Sterne plays with our attention purposefully. In all honesty, I cannot keep track of the original story, if one such exists! Sterne embeds story within story within story, pulling the audience along. For instance, the beginning of Volume II deals with Uncle Toby's story of his groin injury and subsequent recovery. Now this story was deemed necessary, or rather was brought upon us, while Tristram tells the story of his birth, in which his father and Toby are present. Only, the scene in the parlor with father and uncle is last mentioned in detail Vol I Chapter 18, 40 pages previous. These layers are not neat and organized with a clear voice. This voice is complex which detracts from a neat narrative. The voice not only tells the story from the character in question's perspective (Uncle Toby, Tristram, the father ect...) but also interjects into the story as Shandy himself. This skews the flow and distracts us.
The Vu article states that, "Many studies have showed that it is easier to perform two tasks together when the tasks use different stimulus or response modalities than when they use the same modalities. (20) Now, Shandy is using the same modality, that is written word, to convey multiple tasks, that is multiple stories. And to be fair, many books, movies and songs do the same thing. But I think this particular novel is so confusing because the voice never changes. Shandy tells all the stories in the exact same way, which does not allow us to see the physical scene shift. As readers, we do not notice that Shandy has engaged in a pseudo-discourse with someone outside the novel, like the critick in Vol. II, and strayed from the Uncle Toby discourse. Or, we do notice, but too late to create distinct breaks with which we organize the multiple stories.
Succinctly, Sterne is messing with the reader's ability to pay attention to the story through the narrator's inability to pay attention to his own story! We have so much information thrown at us in subtly sarcastic and mocking ways. There are constant references to outside world: literature, scientific thoughts, theories, events, even actual people! The information clogs the pages, obscuring the story, I think on purpose.
I'm starting to see the brilliance in the novel. The Vu article spoke about the philosophical period of attention developments. This particular quote struck me, "Malebranche held that we have access to ideas, or mental representations of the external world, but not direct access to the world itself." (4) What if this goes on in the world of literature? Sterne makes us well aware that TRISTRAM SHANDY controls the words. He tells us exactly what is going on, and that view is flawed and confusing. The reader cannot enter the parlor room directly through the narration because Shandy won't back away. Metaphorically, it's like he is a green-tinted window through which we see the action being played out. The green tint distorts our access to the action inside, and we cannot get rid of it. For example, " I could not give the reader this stroke in my Uncle Toby's picture, by the instrument with which I drew the other parts of it..." (81) Shandy is admitting he is in control of Toby's picture, that is his world, and we as readers have to accept that we will get no other view, and perhaps forces us to imagine an alternate picture, one that changes our perception of Uncle Toby.
Alright, so I kind of dig this book now. I'm still not happy with the lack of actual story, but I think I need to step back and realize that this is not Jane Eyre. The book is a liminal character, flitting between a traditional method of story telling and an almost stream of consciousness narration. Which, in my opinion, is a really hard thing to do, especially when the stream of consciousness won't be invented for another 150 years or so. Sterne is turning the novel inside out and flipping it upside down. This leads me to believe that maybe the story isn't the focus, it's the voice. Our inability to have direct connection to the world, that we have to look through green tinted windows. But what happens when we realize the tint is there?
I'm on to you Laurence Sterne. Watch out.
No comments:
Post a Comment