The author's writing style is unique, with its use of literary devices and conversational language. I've noticed that Elizabeth Gilbert uses many similes and comic descriptions in her writing. For instance, she says that her relationship with David is similar to the plunge that a circus performer makes off of a platform. In this same passage, she writes, "I clung to David for escape from marriage as if he were the last helicopter pulling out of Saignon" (18). I believe she does this to make her experiences seem more light-hearted. Her similes draw attention away from the painful experiences she had. In that passage in particular, she does not want to focus on the desperation that she had in her relationship with David, and therefore makes a comic jab at her clinginess. This shows that Gilbert, while a comic writer, might not always be a reliable one. She feels that she cannot reveal certain details about her life. For example, she does not reveal her personal issues with her husband. While I understand that she does not think that it would be appropriate, I feel that in a memoir, details should not be excluded.
Her casual language, however, is interesting and relatable. While reading, I feel as though she is dictating her story to a friend, rather than writing a book. I connect this to her use of literary devices in her writing. Her use of personification when she describes depression and loneliness tailing her in Italy, as though police officers, brings life to the story. In particular, I liked the description of the different methods of harassment that depression and loneliness had. It brought a light-heartedness to the story, that allows those of us who have not experienced a severe depression like she has, to imagine her emotions and relate to them.
Overall, I find Gilbert's casual, descriptive language to be an asset to the novel, rather than a drawback. Although the comic, colloquial language does make the author's struggles seem less important, it makes the writing much more interesting, than if she were to simply detail her experiences.
I kind of disagree that she is trying to trivialize her problems with her references to mundane things. "The last helicopter pulling out of Saigon" is certainly not a comic thing and, having been in a show about Vietnam and exploring more deeply the horrible things that happened in the war, that reference in particular helps me to more clearly understand her need to cling to David. I think she is using the language and allusions that she knows and is familiar with to more-accurately describe her experiences. While her language is definitely more colloquial than many books, her use of references to experiences and images that others can clearly interpret and relate to helps me understand her more personally than I think I would if she was writing in a more formal style.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of her omission of her problems with her husband, I actually think it was a good idea to not go into that topic. She admits herself that she would not be able to give an objective description of that time, and especially after talking so much about unreliable narrators, I think this was one way that she wanted to keep her story as reliable and truthful as she could. I also think that, had she told her side of that story, she would have ruined her relationship with her husband more than it had been with the divorce, and to me she seems like the type of person to keep the emotions of others in mind, regardless of how unhealthy and negative her relationship with that person has become.
Finally... Do we have to write that formally? With all of the citations and stuff? I know this is an ENGLISH project, but I was under the impression that this is more of an extended "conversation" of the book than a series of essay-like postings. I could be wrong, who knows. Just a thought.
Further on the topic of her troubles with her husband: At first I was a bit agitated at how conservative she is about telling certain information. Initially I was like, "common, you're writing a compilation of memoirs, it's all going to be biased to some extent," but then I began to understand her point of view. She refers to it as her husbands problems, so whether she changes his name in the story or not, it would be unfair to reveal his alleged 'problems' to the world (or at least the many people who read the book and see the movie). Also as Ali said, she was a self-described madwoman at the time so obviously her perception of what actually happened with their relationship would likely be biased and completely warped from the real deal.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I am VERY curious.
And yeah, I keep wanting to use "hahah" in my responses. I feel like I'm on facebook chat or something. I'll try not to though..
On her omission of details, I get a sense of feeling that she is an author who can get off track while writing. Since she is writing in such a free style like this is, she has to restrain herelf from going off the beaten path. For example, when she is talking about if God exsits she says she wants to "skip that argument altogether." So, she is not omitting details not to try to keep the story relaiable, but just more on topic. Had she gotten into the details, the story would lose flow and it would be hard as the reader to understand where she is coming from.
ReplyDeleteAlso, with her language, I get a sense of elitist with her. To me she is trying to show the reader how smart she is. During her 'personal expiernce' with the medicine man, she makes it a point to say she lost a ton of money, but she earned right back. I think it was her way of saying how good she was just to earn all that money right. WHile talking about the divorce aswell, she constantly conveys to the reader that she was the earner in the family. Sure she probably made more money, but I do not see the point it making that obvious in the story.
One line that I did not get was how she said she was not even upset that the Republicans stole the 2000 election. It made zero sense to the story and seemed like a poor effort at comedy.
Great description!
ReplyDelete