One thing that I dislike about Dana's role in Kindred is that she gives the readers too much information. Not like she gives too many details for each scene, but more like she thinks in the book what we, as readers, should be picking up on. She tells more than she shows, which I guess is one aspect of a first-person narrator, but I dislike it because it allows me to wait for her interpretation of events in Kindred and sit back and tune out while the events are actually happening (I don't mean actually sit back but it allows me to pay a little less attention to the plot).
One of the things that Dana makes unnecessarily obvious for the readers is the similarities at we are supposed to notice between characters in Kindred. One example is on page 231, where Dana is arguing with Rufus.
"You watch your mouth," he said.
"Watch yours."
Then later, when Dana is talking to Alice on page 235:
"You want my help, Alice, you watch your mouth!"
"Watch yours," she mocked.
I stared at her in astonishment, remembering, knowing exactly what she had overheard.
Dana makes this connection very clear to us, while in most books and movies that I've encountered, these similarities are supposed to come naturally to the reader. If a phrase in conversation has some significance, Dana makes sure we know it.
Another example is when Dana compares Rufus with his father on pages 214-215:
"You walk away from me, Dana, you'll be back in the fields in an hour!"
...
He sounded more like his father than himself. In that moment, he even looked like his father.
Now, if Dana showed us instead of told us how Rufus resembled his father, I would be much more interested in the story. I recall Dana drawing subtle comparisons between Kevin and Tom Weylin earlier in the novel, but as the story unfolds I feel like Dana is making connections too obvious, and not giving us readers a chance to figure out anything ourselves.
One of the things that Dana makes unnecessarily obvious for the readers is the similarities at we are supposed to notice between characters in Kindred. One example is on page 231, where Dana is arguing with Rufus.
"You watch your mouth," he said.
"Watch yours."
Then later, when Dana is talking to Alice on page 235:
"You want my help, Alice, you watch your mouth!"
"Watch yours," she mocked.
I stared at her in astonishment, remembering, knowing exactly what she had overheard.
Dana makes this connection very clear to us, while in most books and movies that I've encountered, these similarities are supposed to come naturally to the reader. If a phrase in conversation has some significance, Dana makes sure we know it.
Another example is when Dana compares Rufus with his father on pages 214-215:
"You walk away from me, Dana, you'll be back in the fields in an hour!"
...
He sounded more like his father than himself. In that moment, he even looked like his father.
Now, if Dana showed us instead of told us how Rufus resembled his father, I would be much more interested in the story. I recall Dana drawing subtle comparisons between Kevin and Tom Weylin earlier in the novel, but as the story unfolds I feel like Dana is making connections too obvious, and not giving us readers a chance to figure out anything ourselves.
I thought the same thing that at times she was heavy-handed. On the positive note, it means that it is very hard to miss something important Butler is saying. On the other hand, I sometimes feel talked down to and this makes me less drawn into the story because I don't feel like I'm making as active of a role making observations
ReplyDeleteI so often have the opposite experience in my teaching, where I'm working with a subtly ironic narrative that some students are having trouble picking up on. I should be proud that so many of you (Dezy wrote about a similar topic on his recent blog) are impatient with the lack of irony and the "hand-holding" Butler engages in. You guys are more comfortable with subtlety, irony, and ambiguity, and in general I'd say that's a good thing.
ReplyDelete