I find this song amusing at the minute for two very important reasons.
1. Trinity and Rock in relation to this song.
2. I'm writing about Estella and her heart and this is the reversal of sex, in a way.
Anyways!
Very rough essay! (As in, the skeleton for the work to be based on.Very skeletal - frail bones, no real muscle!)
I would very much appreciate anyone to read this and tell me whether they think my argument is sound. ♥
“Dickens’s characters have no mental life. They say perfectly the thing they have to say, but they cannot be conceived as talking about anything else. They never learn, never speculate.” (Orwell). Does Great Expectations support this claim?
Standpoint
Do I agree with this? I can understand Orwell's point. There are characters that do not grow - do not change. Characters that just exist through repetitive motions - like an eternal Groundhog day, one could say. James (Henry) also argues a similar view - he states that Dickens's creates "nothing but figures. He has added nothing to our understanding of human character."
The point, as with most points, does rely fundamentally upon personal interpretations of the novel and where our sympathies lie. Personally, I find that the characters do have a mental life, although it varies in degrees from character to character. Some never change - never learn but then, some have no need to.
This idea of characters have to grow and learn and advance seems to link to personal progression and advancement but some, as I have said, don't need to grow - some have reached the full of their potential, their personal zenith. Biddy and Joe never really change and never seem to aspire to, either. They are contented with their lives in way that Pip, Miss Havisham, Magwitch and perhaps Estella aren't. It is debateable whether or not Mrs. Joe is discontent with her life but, none-the-less, she changes. She grows without attempting to infringe of class/social boundaries - her growth is more linked to her own personal redemption.
Orlick and Drummle never grow but end up stimulating the growth of others - Pumblechook never changes either because he associates advancement in life with increases of wealth and an elevation in personal status. (Idea of commodity and Marx?)
Pip seeks to better himself be becoming a gentleman for Estella despite knowing how unhappy she makes him. He appears to associate happiness with Estella and an elevation to gentility. (bit of a contradiction there.) But [critic I can't remember] argues that Dickens's representation of the upper classes are broken and insane. Pip eventually comes to realise this through discovering Magwitch as his patron, helping Herbert and Magwitch and his acceptance/utterance of his love for Estella - eventually culminating in his forging of an identity through working in India.
Miss Havisham is slow to change but she does eventually after realising how much she has broken Estella. So, instead of creating a beauty to break men's hearts (as her own was broken), she created a broken, empty shell of a woman who admits she cannot love. She repents (before the fire?) - still dies though!
Estella is perhaps the hardest to argue change for - especially in relation to the ending. Estella accepts her status as Miss. Havisham's commodity but is honest and explains to Havisham how could she be expected to love when she was raised to hate light (love). The ending is where Estella's growth comes to light but is it believable? If reader's accept it, then it isn't too bad but Estella's suffering forces her to grow. Is this satisfying? Once again, down to personal perception really! I found that, considering all of the characters that grew through suffering, yes I could accept Estella's growth as a person.
THUS I would find myself disagreeing with Orwell and James. A large degree of the characters do learn and speculate. Just because characters don't have explicit epiphanies or end up where they began doesn't mean there is no growth. (Estella quote - "Broken into - hopefully - a better shape")
OWARI
1. Trinity and Rock in relation to this song.
2. I'm writing about Estella and her heart and this is the reversal of sex, in a way.
Anyways!
Very rough essay! (As in, the skeleton for the work to be based on.Very skeletal - frail bones, no real muscle!)
I would very much appreciate anyone to read this and tell me whether they think my argument is sound. ♥
“Dickens’s characters have no mental life. They say perfectly the thing they have to say, but they cannot be conceived as talking about anything else. They never learn, never speculate.” (Orwell). Does Great Expectations support this claim?
Standpoint
Do I agree with this? I can understand Orwell's point. There are characters that do not grow - do not change. Characters that just exist through repetitive motions - like an eternal Groundhog day, one could say. James (Henry) also argues a similar view - he states that Dickens's creates "nothing but figures. He has added nothing to our understanding of human character."
The point, as with most points, does rely fundamentally upon personal interpretations of the novel and where our sympathies lie. Personally, I find that the characters do have a mental life, although it varies in degrees from character to character. Some never change - never learn but then, some have no need to.
This idea of characters have to grow and learn and advance seems to link to personal progression and advancement but some, as I have said, don't need to grow - some have reached the full of their potential, their personal zenith. Biddy and Joe never really change and never seem to aspire to, either. They are contented with their lives in way that Pip, Miss Havisham, Magwitch and perhaps Estella aren't. It is debateable whether or not Mrs. Joe is discontent with her life but, none-the-less, she changes. She grows without attempting to infringe of class/social boundaries - her growth is more linked to her own personal redemption.
Orlick and Drummle never grow but end up stimulating the growth of others - Pumblechook never changes either because he associates advancement in life with increases of wealth and an elevation in personal status. (Idea of commodity and Marx?)
Pip seeks to better himself be becoming a gentleman for Estella despite knowing how unhappy she makes him. He appears to associate happiness with Estella and an elevation to gentility. (bit of a contradiction there.) But [critic I can't remember] argues that Dickens's representation of the upper classes are broken and insane. Pip eventually comes to realise this through discovering Magwitch as his patron, helping Herbert and Magwitch and his acceptance/utterance of his love for Estella - eventually culminating in his forging of an identity through working in India.
Miss Havisham is slow to change but she does eventually after realising how much she has broken Estella. So, instead of creating a beauty to break men's hearts (as her own was broken), she created a broken, empty shell of a woman who admits she cannot love. She repents (before the fire?) - still dies though!
Estella is perhaps the hardest to argue change for - especially in relation to the ending. Estella accepts her status as Miss. Havisham's commodity but is honest and explains to Havisham how could she be expected to love when she was raised to hate light (love). The ending is where Estella's growth comes to light but is it believable? If reader's accept it, then it isn't too bad but Estella's suffering forces her to grow. Is this satisfying? Once again, down to personal perception really! I found that, considering all of the characters that grew through suffering, yes I could accept Estella's growth as a person.
THUS I would find myself disagreeing with Orwell and James. A large degree of the characters do learn and speculate. Just because characters don't have explicit epiphanies or end up where they began doesn't mean there is no growth. (Estella quote - "Broken into - hopefully - a better shape")
OWARI
no subject
Date: 2006-10-27 04:54 pm (UTC)You coming to the Expo? It's a long way to go for you, huh. ^^;