More than anything else I can't help but notice the difference between Portrait and
Dubliners. It is even hard for me to grasp that these two works were done by the same author and involve similar components. In the most bland and general sense the books are both highly realistic and deal with real places. Both works involve a great depth of detail and a superior focus on the things taking place around the narrator. Yet, the two works are also vastly different. While it is true that
Dubliners was a collection whereas Portrait is a novel, neither fits into those roles. While reading through the former, I found the short stories engaging and thought provoking, and was perfectly accepting of their title as "the greatest collection of short stories ever." Each work could stand alone with its great depth of meaning and powerful subtext, but the stories also worked brilliantly together to form something so cohesive and so powerful that it blows the top off most other works. On the other hand, Portrait has left me wanting more. As a classic Joycean novel I expected it to fill me with the same revelatory emotions I felt when reading "The Dead", but after meeting Steven and coming into a work done with only his thoughts, I can't help but say I'm a little let down. Although One could argue I'm not giving the book its fair shake since I'm only part way through, I found the first section of Portrait to be somewhat simplistic. So simplistic in fact that I had trouble deciding on what to write, because it felt as though it would be impossible to find insights deeper than the face value of the text. Maybe this is merely a merit (or fault) of the stream of conscious style, but I was utterly lost.
It occurs to me that maybe the problem is that Steven is still young and hasn't had the time to develop and understanding of subtext yet, but it is singularly clear that his are the words of a child. While I don't want to totally denounce the book, because I do think it has its own merits and successes, I guess my central point is that Portrait is so far off of
Dubliners as a work. So the question then becomes, why did Joyce decide to change to the stream of conscious style? Was it because he was starting to go mad already, or did he feel it conveyed something new that I'm missing?
I think the main reason why you seem to be upset with the stream of consciousness style is, as you mentioned, that we have only encountered the style through the perspective of a young boy. You mention that Stephen is at this stage of the book a developing boy, and it is conveyed that he is still trying to observe the world and has trouble coherently developing his thoughts. It is my expectation that Stephen will continue to develop throughout the book and will become easier to follow his train of thought. Another interesting thing I found was that while A Portrait focuses on a stream of consciousness, Dubliners had a limit of consciousness. So you can look at it that Joyce did not change to the new style, but merely adapted it to a full novel.
ReplyDelete