Sunday, November 1, 2015
Dialogue in Gaddis
Much of Carpenter's Gothic is told in the form of unattributed dialogue. It sometimes makes the novel difficult to follow. I'd like us to consider why an author would tell a novel in this form. Often, it seems like the characters have difficulty understanding each other. They may not speak the same language, they may not be listening to each other, they may simply have no investment in understanding the pov of the other. In Morrison, as we discussed last week, dialogue was often used to express "local color" and to impart information in a dramatic fashion (i.e. like a Greek chorus). In Gaddis, it seems as if dialogue is used in a different fashion. Can you try to get at how/why he uses dialogue in the way he does?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i feel he uses the dialogue in a way for the reader to use his brain when reading the book. When readers read books about anything, a lot of times they get bored becuase everything is basically there, example: Nora says "..." but here it makes us more aware more alert of whats going on. For the characters i felt that the book just goes to a A and B conversation. in the first scene its Billy and Booth and then the next scene its Booth and Paul and then Madam Socrate and Booth etc. it just seems that he wants us, the readers, to use our brains and really focus on his work and see who said this, why is he/she saying this etc
ReplyDeletethe more i read the book, i started to question Gaddis as to why is he not stating who saying what. But then again i cant really make this argument to the full extent because when you read the book you understand whose saying what to who. For example when Paul is talking, it doesn't say Paul says ... but it uses words that is directing to another person, when the reader knows that there are only two characters in the scene and so you know who said it. But then again it goes against the "right' way of writing a book; its supposed to say Paul said ... its hard to understand why he writes this novel this way, maybe its because he wanted his readers to read his books and focus on them or maybe he just wanted to have a different writing style than other writers in his generation.
DeleteIn this novel, Gaddis uses dialogue in a different fashion. Not only is it visually confusing to understand who is speaking, but oftentimes, there are interruptions or even characters not paying attention to their own conversation with other characters in the novel. I think Gaddis does this because he is trying to get the reader's attention... Seriously, I had to keep rereading passages to understand when dialogue was occurring and who was speaking to who. Also, like our last discussion, it sets the scene, the personality of the characters, and the relationships between the characters. We are able to get into the story as if we're in it, and we are able to understand the characters POV and have a better grasp of their emotions/feelings.
ReplyDeleteDialogue is a very important aspect of much of the stories we read today. Gaddis used a sense of dialogue that is quite different from others authors, even ones like Morrison. I feel like the dialogue he uses shifts back and forth from English to other languages and it can be quite confusing to follow. But I think what Gaddis is trying to do is kind of introduce each character in a way that expresses where they came from so we get a sense of who they really are. Although the characters may seem to not comprehend, he fixes this story up in a way where the reader can see the direction in which he is going. The communication seems to be there but it's like actually comprehending what is going on is a little difficult.
ReplyDeleteGaddis uses dialogue differently than other authors. It is very informal, but sounds very life like with the stuttering and pauses. Dialogue is also written differently in this book. It's written in bullets, you do not see quotes at all. The dialogue goes back and forth. I believe this gives it a modern feel, it's very different. It is not dialogue we are used to seeing in a novel. I feel like he does this for the dramatic affect. This novel could be considered as a gothic novel so I feel that the uncommon dialogue shown adds a touch to the dramatic/gothic feel. We see on pages 25-26, the two characters speaking can not really communicate well due to the lack of french known by one character. This also adds an affect tho the whole gothic idea. Not being able to communicate with someone always is a downside. This adds drama for sure to the dialogue. The he said she said aspect really ties in with this novel, it could be confusing but I feel it brings the reader in. Making it more realistic and interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteMy French is rusty so I had to look up some of these passages on Google Translate. It was interesting to note that I didn't really need to look it up, that Gaddis gives us clues to what is being talked about. So for instance, Liz agrees w/ Madame Socrate that the vacuum cleaner "is quite old" so it was no surprise to discover that "On a besoin d'un nouvel aspirateur" means "We need a new vacuum cleaner."
ReplyDeleteThe author may have wrote the book in this way to challenge the reader, pulling their interest towards the book and want to understand. This form of writing could be used as a form of "baiting."
ReplyDeleteThe author may have also wrote the book in such a way where it is more realistic to the reader. In reality there is not a narrarator that walks everywhere with us describing whose talking or what kind of motion they are giving. For example, when I walk down the street taliking to my friend, there is no one saying , Dominique walked down the street telling angela blah blah blah... Therefore maybe the author wanted us to get more of a realistic, present feel for the characters and setting. Maybe he wanted us to read as if we are the characters when reading the dialogues.
I believe that many authors may do this type of unattributed dialogue for one main reason. Dialogue helps some readers assume what type of story they are or will be reading. In this case the reason because they author is trying to engage you into the story. Things become confusing and aspects begin to jump back and forth because some readers usually lose interest in a story quickly. The author seems to realize that so he tries to use techniques that will help readers use critical thinking skills to try and understand what is going on. To me the author tries to help his readers understand the point of view and main idea of each chapter. By changing the language in the story I feel that the author wants his readers to see their are different cultures included in the story...
ReplyDeleteI think Gaddis probably uses dialogue in this way because it makes the reader focus more. A lot of the conversations are left on cliff hangers. The dialogue isn't hard to follow but you do have to pay attention to what is going on outside the dialogue. With the conversation between Liz and Paul, it seems as if Liz is more concerned about other things while Paul is jumping from one topic to the next not allowing Liz to keep up. I find the bits of where dialogue and action mix. Like when Liz or Paul or Billy do something while speaking. When Billy speaks to Liz while going for a pee Gaddis writes "-Bibb? from the opened door." at first I thought he was saying everything.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Gaddis is writing his novel the way he was, because I believe that he is trying to make it seem like the characters don't really understand each other. This is seen in the passage that we just read, because Liz is meeting with Madame Socrate who is speaking french and Liz cannot understand what she is saying. This also occurs in the first chapter with Liz and Paul, because Paul does not understand what she is saying. The reason the dialogue is like this, is to show that Liz is a very confused character and does not even know what she is saying half of the time. I believe that Liz may be a little insane because the conversations she has are all over the place and are most of the times hard to follow. One question I have is if all of Gaddis's books are written the same, with the dashes instead of quotations for dialogue?
ReplyDeleteThe author uses dialogue the way he does because he wants to suggest to the reader that the characters are different but connect in certain ways. He uses French punctuation, which makes it difficult to understand when the dialogue stops however Gaddis forms a certain perspective on the essence of the conversation. The speech of the characters are repetitive and back tracking making the dialogue confusing when trying to figure out if the characters are speaking or if the narrative voice is taking over.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading most of the time it’s one sided or the author is telling you step by step what’s happened, happening, and what’s to come but in this novel the author often changes perspectives. You understand the characters personality more. The author doesn’t directly point out whose speaking but you know when you read it which character is saying what. It keeps you focused on what’s happening in the story. Instead of the story being told to the reader, the reader is experiencing the same things the characters of the books are at the same time, like how she doesn’t really speak the language well so as she’s struggling to communicate so is the reader. And instead of a dialogue to tell the reader what’s to come, the author waits so when the character comes to realize something, so will the readers.
ReplyDeleteFrom the reading, I believe that Gaddis is trying to make his readers analyze what is going on and make sure that the story isn't plain by simply showing what goes on with each character. By making the characters not understand each other, this forces the reader to have to possibly look back in the story and have a better understanding of what went on between the specific characters. An example would be Liz since she is a character that is confused and doesn't understand what goes on with what other characters are saying like in her conversation with Paul. I believe Gaddis uses this kind of dialogue to go straight to whatever is going on in the novel with not so much explanation or fluidity which still makes the story a challenge for readers.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Carpenter's Gothic," I feel the author uses this way of telling the story because he wants us to picture this situation, like how a play or theater production would want us to picture it not as a set production but as if it was an actual family, or actual real life scene that we are seeing. He writes this story basically like a script. Many characters, during the conversation, such as the on on page 25, they do not really understand each other and the reason for that, is so we get the picture of how each character looks, based off how they sound. But I feel this also gives the idea that the characters are all focused and are trying to understand what each other is saying, because that is usually a normal reaction to a person when they are having trouble trying to figure out what a person with an accent is saying. I've also noticed that many of the conversations throughout the novel, it is usually a small number, mainly two people, and not a group of people talking.
ReplyDeleteDialogue is a very useful tool in many story. Not only it gives a voice to the characters but it make the more realistic. Authors use dialogue in their novel to make the story more advance,it takes away the voice from the narrators and give the characters a voice. Dialogue makes the characters develop that's why I believe Carpenter's Gothic use dialogue the way he do .He wanted to define the characters being that they speak differently....
ReplyDelete