Okay, I talked you through the first few pages of Tristram Shandy. Now have a go at it on your own. Help each other out. What do you get from the 50-iah pages you've been assigned? Where do you find yourself stuck? What seems amusing? Noteworthy? Clever? Unusual? Alternatively, where do you find yourself getting irritated?
As I mentioned in class, you might find this page helpful--there's a brief run-down of the main characters, plus an outline of the novel as a whole.
Deadline: Wednesday (2/9), 1pm.
10 comments:
I'm stumped on what "whiskers" is referring to in chapter 1, Volume V. I kept thinking I maybe understood it a little, but then it seemed to be used in a different context (whether it was or not, i'm not sure - i could have just been confused).
One other thing I find noteworthy is the lack of quotation marks in the text. Considering the death of Brother Bobby, it flips from the father to Uncle Toby speaking without any clear sign of the voice change. I found this made keeping what each of them straight (and following each of their thought processes) more difficult. I see the lack of quotation marks other places throughout the reading as well, but I first noticed it in this conversation and afterwards noticed it much more frequently.
Part of this comment also attempts to answer one of the questions in the next post. I'm baffled by several things. You're probably thinking "whiskers" is one of them and yes it is. I thought it was meant to be an analogy for something more meaningful- then I remembered, I am not supposed to look so much beyond the surface. Maybe it is literally just whiskers (beards on men). Sterne also seems to be a fan of leaving every stone unturned. Every random thought Shandy has, it becomes integrated in the novel. After another stub or two, it seemed to just be a story he randomly remembered and made a promise? On page 310, he says "Upon Whiskers- I'm sorry I made it--'twas as inconsiderate a promise as ever entered a man's head--A chapter upon whiskers! alas!". So, I suppose he wanted to share something about "Whiskers" the following chapter that appears to be completely irrelevant. However, this is honestly a "mind unfolding" process. When I unfold presents, I never do it streamlined. Perhaps he isn't thinking "streamlined". Maybe there is more meaning behind it, and if there is, I cannot comprehend it yet.
In addition, I was confused with the stories the corporal was telling when we were going back and forth between Walter, Trim, and Shandy. I was floundering amongst all the references to authors and their stories. On the bright side, I was comfortable with following Shandy when he wanted to digress (i.e. go back to the time of the accident, go back where his mother was).
Although the text is dense and takes me a few re-reads to understand what Shandy is saying, I am finding a great deal of humor in his desire to mention every single thought that pops into his head (like 217 mentioned in the previous comment). One example in particular that I liked was on page 331. Shandy is discussing his opinions on truth and disputes, then goes into his fear of suffocation and bad smells. It makes no sense! (Unless I'm missing something). But it's funny. And for that, I applaud.
On the whole, I seemed to do fine with at least following the train of thought (or lack thereof) of Tristram. I will say though it did help at times to go back at re-read some of the progression of his thought as I have found it almost is inevitable to get lost at some point in his stream of consciousness. The only instances with which I seemed to have a bit of trouble were the ones where he seems to invent a term or noun and apply it to the situation he describes next. One example might be 'Wrinkles'. After reading the lines involving 'wrinkles' initially, I definitely needed to review them again as he obviously was referring to some concept I have not thought of yet.
I do enjoy the subtle humor he employs in his writing. I'm not sure if this humor is a by-product of the process of writing as a process or is a very deliberate action (I tend to believe more the latter), but it does motivate me to focus more in order to pick up on some of the more subtle ideas. Though the random thoughts on the page require this attention to the story regardless.
Honestly I think how I feel about Tristram Shandy definitely depends on the mood I'm in when I start reading it. Sterne has a humorous way of including whatever thought happens to pop into his head on a certain matter, and his opinions about certain things can be very funny. I can appreciate these inclusions, but I find myself getting frustrated when he jumps from one topic to the next too quickly, or when his rant about some random thing goes on for too long and appears to come out of nowhere. For example, I understand that Sterne first says he will write a chapter all about whiskers just to show that as an author he is free to choose what he wishes to write about. But I get frustrated when on pages 310-314 he tells a completely random story right in the middle of him explaining the death of his brother Bobby. Personally, I don't really care about these whiskers or the other tale; I am more interested in finding out what happened to his brother and so I find this interruption a little unnecessary and annoying.
I found this writing style to be quite clever. The way Tristram is able to keep the reader’s attention, even in mundane or irrelevant topics, is very impressive. The best example of this I can think of is the chapter regarding whiskers. Like Sara, I found myself rather frustrated while reading the chapter (I really wanted to know what happened to Bobby). Afterwards though, I found myself to be rather impressed. Tristram was able to keep my attention during a rather silly and irrelevant chapter. I didn’t really care much about the idea of a chapter on whiskers, but he almost was able to make me excited about it; he certainly was able to get me to read it. I was so desperate to know what happened to Bobby, I would have read almost anything to finally get there.
I thought I would be more irritated while reading Tristram Shandy because of the writing style. However, I am pleasantly surprised that so far I like it. I think the comments he makes to reader actually enhance the process of reading this type of story. I'm not sure exactly what I like about the stream of consciousness. So the best way I can describe it, so far, is that it makes his character endearing. Nonetheless, there are still parts that I do not understand. For example, I do not know what whiskers is referring to. I am also unsure if whiskers carries the same meaning outside of the court scene.
I was somewhat confused when reading Tristram Shandy because of the writing style presented but after a few pages I guess you become accustomed to it. Some of the things I found interesting were mentioned above like the punctuations and things. Also it was hard for me to follow along at first but after listen to the teacher read it in class; it was better for me to understand some things that were going on that I by passed in my reading. Some of the characters are also confusing but the background you have helped in a way. I guess I have to wait to I read more or learn more about it to fully understand it.
I agree with KMS I thought the way Tristram decide to write this text was very insightful, because unlike someone babbling on about nonsense and worse with a monotone voice, I felt like his random nonsense was sort of making sense. Like many of my peers, I wanted to know if we were to interpret "whiskers" as some sort of an analogy for something. If not that what do we make of it?. Also, I am starting to think that maybe C18 writers had their own grammatical rules, because they all appear to be similiar in that aspect of writing
The style of writing that Sterne uses is really irritating for me. It makes the reading more choppy and difficult to follow. I find myself reading a section of a chapter that has a thousand different things happening in it and then later on, I can't even remember what I read. I pretty much understand the basics of what is happening in the story, but it is a little frustrating when Tristram mentions all of these different characters but doesn't really explain who they are or what they have to do with the story. I think Tristram does this to the reader on purpose because he knows how ridiculous it is, but apparently that is the point. He will briefly mention one character in a particular chapter, and then revisit that person later on, maybe giving us more detail and insight to the significance of the character. I have to say that while this style of writing is interesting, and new to me, I question whether I like it or not. I guess I'll have to continue reading more before I figure that out. I think I'm starting to prefer the poetry over the prose.
Post a Comment