tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post2342497283175971361..comments2024-03-29T03:04:00.853-05:00Comments on Wuthering <br>Expectations: Schnitzler's Dying - some idle speculationAmateur Reader (Tom)http://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-7312852084694161262013-01-18T16:26:13.642-06:002013-01-18T16:26:13.642-06:00Right, exactly. And Schnitzler obviously removes ...Right, exactly. And Schnitzler obviously removes all of this stuff on purpose. It is easy enough to slip in fleeting mentions of deceased parents or something to let me know Marie is no longer a practicing Catholic - or whether the characters are married!<br /><br />So he is deliberately minimizing the size of the "world around the story."<br /><br />I do wonder if this is a play that metamorphosized into fiction.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-34966969617545511922013-01-18T14:32:05.810-06:002013-01-18T14:32:05.810-06:00That's a useful comparison. "The Lady wit...That's a useful comparison. "The Lady with the Little Dog" is a focused story, a small story if you will (perhaps "intimate" is better than "small"), but it feels like there's a whole world around the story. The lover has a wife and a job. The lady has a husband, friends and hobbies. They each have pasts, etc.<br /><br />The size of the implied fictional world is something I think about a lot lately. I'm trying to think of an author I'd call "narrow." Maybe Camus. Not much exists beyond his main characters. Narrowness of theme is another matter completely. I stay away from that discussion.scott g.f.baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05726743149139510832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-29174838612592615532013-01-18T14:17:54.383-06:002013-01-18T14:17:54.383-06:00Focused is good, and kinder.
I'm thinking m...Focused is good, and kinder. <br /><br />I'm thinking more in hedgehog / fox terms, I guess. My idea of Schnitzler, at least earlyish Schnitzler, is becoming awfully prickly. <i>La Ronde</i> tricked me.<br /><br />Maybe another way of thinking about this is that I am asking myself what kind of fantasy world does Schnitzler create? Big or small, detailed or patchy? Some of this is just categorization, not judgment. What kind of trick does this particular magician do?<br /><br />Yeah, Brian, who are the "big picture thinkers"? Thomas Mann, someone like that? Or Tolstoy or Hugo, writers with gigantic casts? Yes, plenty of room for both.<br /><br />Where <i>Dying</i> will look weak is when we compare it not to something as different as <i>Buddenbrooks</i> but to - I will just blast away - a small, similar story like "The Lady with the Little Dog." Then Schnitzler's <i>artistic</i> narrowness is brought into relief.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-66592789551594304002013-01-18T12:25:17.579-06:002013-01-18T12:25:17.579-06:00I was writing a reply and the essential concepts q...I was writing a reply and the essential concepts quickly spiraled all out of control, over the horizon. But I'll try anyway. "The world" in fiction is always an abstraction, and how much the author attempts to represent/imply the real live "whole world" will vary, though of course even stories with tremendous sweep only apply brushstrokes here and there on the surface of an abstract real world, right? There is no work of art that comes close to representing the great messy expanse of existence, though we can pretend along with the artist that the whole of wholeness is implied. Maybe Schnitzler is just leaving out the things that are nonessential; perhaps "narrow" isn't the right word, and he's merely focused? I am not sure what I'm arguing about here. Possibly the idea that Brian's "big picture thinkers" are no less narrow in their core ideas, and that their big pictures are just more elaborate sets that hold stories which aren't any larger than these tales of Schnitzler. Of course I haven't read the Schnitzler and I don't really know who Brian means by "big picture thinkers." This is all a hash, but I'm hitting "publish" anyway.scott g.f.baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05726743149139510832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-37029679213536168872013-01-18T09:47:08.472-06:002013-01-18T09:47:08.472-06:00Great observation about the narrowness of Schnitz...Great observation about the narrowness of Schnitzler's writing. I think that is an interesting, and useful way of analyzing all artistic or for that matter any intellectual endevour. I think that such narrowness can enhance and add uniqueness to a work. Of course I am glad that not all writers craft their work like this, as "big picture thinkers" are vitally important. I do think that there is plenty of room for both kinds of art.Brian Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139559400312336791noreply@blogger.com