Right before we started Mrs.
Dalloway, we read two essays by Virginia Woolf. In these, she writes that
she, and all other authors, should be in search of character and accuracy of
life of that character. In her scenario with Mrs. Brown, she criticizes other
authors for describing only the carriage and scene and forcing readers to fill
in the blanks when it came to Mrs. Brown’s character. She is frustrated by the
materialistic tendencies of this fiction. This made me think back to The Mezzanine and wonder what Woolf
would think of the novel, specifically Howie’s “character”.
On the one hand, The
Mezzanine is incredibly materialistic. It could essentially be
characterized as a person going on and on about things he encounters and
sometimes talking about an aspect of life. We are presented with a picture of
Howie, but only through the objects he describes and the experiences he shares
with us. In many ways, the reader’s only way to glean Howie’s character is to analyze
his analysis of life, or his descriptions of life.
On the other hand, after finishing The Mezzanine, I feel like I know about the character of Howie. The
footnotes and the way in which he describes objects and characterizes his
interactions with the world define a rather specific kind of character. How
many people would refer to escalators as “a pair of integral signs”? And even
if you wouldn’t typically refer to the escalators as integral signs, I think it
says something about Howie (and Baker?) that, when trying to make the mundane seem
important, their instinct is to go for this specific wording. When I was
writing my pastiche, I felt like parts of my character/personality made subtle
appearances. Even when I was writing in Baker’s style, I had some control over
my word choice and portrayal of the world.
I think that Baker does create a character from Howie, and I
think this has to do with the perspective. If all of the events were simply
told, without the personal anecdotes or quirky phrases, I would have been bored
out of my mind and unable to relate to the issues and joys Howie points out in
life. But how would the events be told without character (assuming that it
could not simply be presented as fact, because then it would not be fiction)?
If the “events” were just written, without a traditional character’s voice (such as Howie's), would the
narrator’s voice (the omnipotent) count as a character? One of the things that
gives me pause in saying Howie does have character is that I don’t know how
much of the writing depicts the world from Howie’s perspective and how much of
the writing is the world from Baker’s perspective. Where do we stop learning
about Howie and start learning about Baker? Does the author count as character?
I don’t know, but I’m hoping that reading Mrs. Dalloway will help me learn more
about what counts as character (because at this point, even an attempt at a definition
would help).
What do you think?
This is really interesting! My initial response is to say that the author doesn't count as a character, that they are just the omnipotent describer of life. I've always thought the author and narrator are completely separated. Certainly, the author's personality will bleed into their work. But in most cases, this won't teach you much about the author since they are focused on creating their character, not portraying themselves, especially in a fictional world. But The Mezzanine is different from a typical work of fiction, as we've discussed. Because it's a story about the mundane and ordinary things in life, Baker bleeding through Howie is far more likely than any other story. Mr. Mitchell showed us some of Baker's other writing, and I think it's safe to say Baker is pretty fascinated by the world, just as Howie is. So I believe we can gain a fairly good understanding of Baker. But where the line between Howie and Baker is? I'm not sure. You mentioned that when you were writing your pastiche, you felt that part of your personality made an appearance. I also found that to be true, but I wonder if that changes with Baker? We were writing pastiches where we were the characters, and Baker was writing a book with a character that wasn't himself. Would less of his personality have come through in this case? Can we learn as much about Baker reading The Mezzanine as we could learn about ourselves reading our own pastiches? Perhaps not, but I think at the least we can glean that Baker is quite similar to Howie.
ReplyDeleteWow! Lots of interesting things...
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I feel like Virginia Woolf would have some qualms about the Mezzanine and Baker's writing style. After all, she is all for the direct portrayal of the character and not so much for the surroundings. But Baker's style allows for the reader to become personally acquainted with Howie and have an incredibly deep understanding of how his mind works, which is what Woolf is going for in her writing style.
As for if the narrator's voice counts as a character, I would say that it depends. Sometimes the narrator projects himself into the narrative, but it may not be the real thoughts and opinions of the author (throwback to the Princess Bride), and sometimes the narrator shares many viewpoints with the author, as in the case of the Mezzanine. I would say for the Mezzanine, the author does not count as a character - he portrays himself through Howie, and is therefore not separated. For Mrs. Dalloway, I would also consider the author as not a character as her voice as the narrator hops from character to character.
Wow! I've never really thought about this before, but now that you mention it...
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think Woolf was writing with the assumption that people would still use drama and plot and relationships and all those conventions (and, to some extent, most authors today still do). She was just highlighting the point that these were not nearly as important as the device of CHARACTER. I think the Mezzanine might be the extreme she didn't expect - The Mezzanine abandons most functions of plot and dramatic relationships. It appears to be like a memoir of a person who's very interested in the "smaller" things in life.
I'm really interested in the way she might see the book: is it a splatter of HOWIE HOWIE everywhere or is Howie a thin lens through which we view the author's musings on life? She highlights character being a literary vehicle multiple times in her essay, and something through which the author can get their point across. She also states that a novel should be about whatever the author feels inspires him (which is clearly represented here - no one could voluntarily write over 100 pages about something they don't feel inspired by). I don't know if she'd necessarily like the novel (especially on the first read), but I don't think she'd contest its being a novel.
Thanks for connecting these two authors in this way! It was interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting. We’ve talked a lot about what makes The Mezzanine art vs. just an explanation of 1980 corporate life, and I think Howie and the Mezzanine's other characters are a huge part of that. We're not just seeing the world around Howie, we are seeing it from Howie's perspective, which gives us a deep look into who Howie is. I don't know whether Woolf would like it or not, but I think she could appreciate our view of Howie's mind.
Although I think authors often project their personality onto characters, I wasn't initially sure authors can count as a character, unless the work is explicitly a non-fiction story about them. However, in Mrs. Dalloway, we get a sense of Woolf's personality and thoughts on her characters through the narrator (how she makes fun of the Londoners staring at the skywriting, her description of Septimus writing his letter, etc.). However, the narrator of Mrs. Dalloway would be hard to characterize overall, because it's never the same voice; sometimes it describes character's thoughts and feelings. Either way, this is really interesting to think about.