I believe the use of Indirect Discourse really adds to a
Gothic novel. Maybe i failed to see the point of our little experiment on
Monday, however, I felt that our group had a hard time coming up with dialogue
for a character that was talking using Indirect Discourse. This made me think
that perhaps the use of this narrative mode was to create a sense of
mystery if the character just flat our
said everything they were going to see, and we as the reader saw that, I feel
we would lose a lot of the darkness that come into a Gothic novel. In a sense I
think the Indirect Discourse is a major factor into what make this Gothic
without it would lose an entire sense of darkness that we miss. So I am going
to put forth the theory that the ambiguity that comes along with this novel is
what provides, at least for me, a sense of enigmatic foreboding that the novel
needs to be complete.
Also I made this meme which describes my feelings of this book.
Haha awesome
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the lack of concrete dialogue in parts of the novel adds to the mystery of the gothic novel. Describing the characters' motions and actions instead of having them just speak directly leaves more room for interpretation. Not to mention it would get tedious if the characters explained everything in dialogue too frequently. Most of what my group came up with in writing dialogue came out sounding cliche and tedious.
ReplyDeleteIt's just a matter of personal taste, I guess. I think if the dialogue is handled eloquently there is more room for poetic language. I'd much rather have a soliloquy that airs out all the dirty laundry.No need for all that mystery if its said beautifully. Also I am enjoying the pacing of Romance of the Forest its much more bearable than Otranto.
ReplyDeleteJust to add to that i really dislike the trend of contemporary fiction in which the plot is retold to me 8 times through dialogue. As Cassiopeia said, the non-verbal communication leaves more room for interpretation, and forces the reader to pay more attention to the discrete details of the narrative.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the novel has a lack of "concrete dialogue," Coyle makes a rather strong point that the reason behind this is to leave room for interpretation. Like "2001: A Space Odyssey," for the most part, it's a nonverbal experience, leaving our mind to wander and pay attention to the details.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I felt much more immersed in this story than one that contains mostly dialog. I think that the use of indirect discourse during the first half was an excellent timing decision on Radcliffe's part. Typically, the first half of a novel serves to set the tone and atmosphere of the work. By not having characters directly speak to one another, Radcliffe allows the reader to make assumptions about the characters and, in a way, mold their identities. In doing this, readers will become more invested in the characters - which leads to a greater sense of suspense when dangerous situations present themselves.
ReplyDelete