![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 16th, 2004 05:28 pmThe Counterfeiters is a very strange book... Gide seems to have no concern whatsoever for conventional plot and character development. Characters that seemed significant in the early part of the book have been all but forgotten now that I've reached the second half. Storylines appear briefly only to disappear again a few chapters later. The whole things seems rather more like a collection of subplots than a unified novel, and reading it is a little bit like looking into a murky pond, watching as different bits and pieces float to the surface and then sink again... It's entirely possible that Gide may yet do something to tie all the strands together, to bring back all the incidents and characters that have passed through the story, but I doubt that's going to happen.
As if it weren't difficult enough simply to keep track of all the people who wander in and out of the story, The Counterfeiters also engages in some postmodern trickery and self-referentiality worthy of Jonathan Safran Foer. One of the main characters is a novelist in the process of writing a book; the book is called (what else?) The Counterfeiters. Halfway through the book, Gide abandons all pretense of narrative and writes a chapter in which he, in his own voice, goes over all of his characters, reviewing their personalities, discussing the mistakes he made in crafting them, and concluding, "If it ever happens to me to invent another story, I shall allow only well-tempered characters to inhabit it." As I mentioned in an earlier post, this authorial voice also breaks through the narrative at many other points, offering opinions on the characters and the action.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is the chapter in which Edouard, the novelist character, explains the theories behind his version of The Counterfeiters. He is trying to create a novel that dramatizes the conflict between reality and the desire to make reality into art. Edouard is very dismissive of the realist novel and of writers whose aim is to capture a "slice of life." He explains that by localizing and specifying, writers restrict themselves and, by extension, restrict the scope and power of their work. He wants to make a strong statement against the naturalist school of thought, so he plans to write a book whose protagonist is a novelist who wants to abandon reality in his art yet finds himself constantly brought face to face with reality by events. Sound familiar? Gide wants to abandon reality, so he writes a novel about Edouard who wants to abandon reality, so he writes a novel about a novelist who wants to abandon reality... Welcome to the twilight zone.
It is tempting to take Edouard's literary theories as Gide's, and they would indeed seem to explain a lot about why the book is plotted and structured the way it is, but I'm not sure that I can say with any confidence that Gide really believes the words he put in Edouard's mouth. I don't trust Gide enough at the point; it seems too likely that he is spoofing Edouard, spoofing himself, spoofing his own book as he writes it. We've gone beyond the realm of the unreliable narrator and into the territory of the unreliable author. Perhaps it was by inserting himself into the text so much that Gide opened himself up to charges of unreliability. If the authorial voice wasn't always popping up with little asides about the characters, if he hadn't written a whole chapter analyzing his own characters, I wouldn't have the sense that perhaps he's just playacting, that the authorial voice is not Gide's own, but that of some other character he has invented. I may be making it too complicated, but I don't know. I just feel like I can't trust this guy to play straight with me...
The edition of The Counterfeiters that I'm reading includes at the back the journal that Gide kept while he was writing the book, and I am hoping that perhaps there will be some answers there.
All in all, I would say that at this point I'm very impressed with the book and it is (obviously) giving me a lot to think about, but I'm not finding it terribly enjoyable. I'm frustrated by the way the different threads of plot get dropped so often. I think I see why Gide is doing it, but I still find it annoying that as soon as I get interested in something it disappears and is replaced by some other subplot. It will often reappear later in the book, but by that time I'm interested in something else. I feel like Gide keeps pulling the rug out from under me, and I don't care for it. I also find that many of the characters are pretty repugnant, which always makes it harder for me to enjoy a book. I do love Olivier, though. It's so painful to watch as, again and again, he's unable to express the depths of his feelings and so gets hurt over and over again because the people around him have no idea how much is going on under his surface.
As if it weren't difficult enough simply to keep track of all the people who wander in and out of the story, The Counterfeiters also engages in some postmodern trickery and self-referentiality worthy of Jonathan Safran Foer. One of the main characters is a novelist in the process of writing a book; the book is called (what else?) The Counterfeiters. Halfway through the book, Gide abandons all pretense of narrative and writes a chapter in which he, in his own voice, goes over all of his characters, reviewing their personalities, discussing the mistakes he made in crafting them, and concluding, "If it ever happens to me to invent another story, I shall allow only well-tempered characters to inhabit it." As I mentioned in an earlier post, this authorial voice also breaks through the narrative at many other points, offering opinions on the characters and the action.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is the chapter in which Edouard, the novelist character, explains the theories behind his version of The Counterfeiters. He is trying to create a novel that dramatizes the conflict between reality and the desire to make reality into art. Edouard is very dismissive of the realist novel and of writers whose aim is to capture a "slice of life." He explains that by localizing and specifying, writers restrict themselves and, by extension, restrict the scope and power of their work. He wants to make a strong statement against the naturalist school of thought, so he plans to write a book whose protagonist is a novelist who wants to abandon reality in his art yet finds himself constantly brought face to face with reality by events. Sound familiar? Gide wants to abandon reality, so he writes a novel about Edouard who wants to abandon reality, so he writes a novel about a novelist who wants to abandon reality... Welcome to the twilight zone.
It is tempting to take Edouard's literary theories as Gide's, and they would indeed seem to explain a lot about why the book is plotted and structured the way it is, but I'm not sure that I can say with any confidence that Gide really believes the words he put in Edouard's mouth. I don't trust Gide enough at the point; it seems too likely that he is spoofing Edouard, spoofing himself, spoofing his own book as he writes it. We've gone beyond the realm of the unreliable narrator and into the territory of the unreliable author. Perhaps it was by inserting himself into the text so much that Gide opened himself up to charges of unreliability. If the authorial voice wasn't always popping up with little asides about the characters, if he hadn't written a whole chapter analyzing his own characters, I wouldn't have the sense that perhaps he's just playacting, that the authorial voice is not Gide's own, but that of some other character he has invented. I may be making it too complicated, but I don't know. I just feel like I can't trust this guy to play straight with me...
The edition of The Counterfeiters that I'm reading includes at the back the journal that Gide kept while he was writing the book, and I am hoping that perhaps there will be some answers there.
All in all, I would say that at this point I'm very impressed with the book and it is (obviously) giving me a lot to think about, but I'm not finding it terribly enjoyable. I'm frustrated by the way the different threads of plot get dropped so often. I think I see why Gide is doing it, but I still find it annoying that as soon as I get interested in something it disappears and is replaced by some other subplot. It will often reappear later in the book, but by that time I'm interested in something else. I feel like Gide keeps pulling the rug out from under me, and I don't care for it. I also find that many of the characters are pretty repugnant, which always makes it harder for me to enjoy a book. I do love Olivier, though. It's so painful to watch as, again and again, he's unable to express the depths of his feelings and so gets hurt over and over again because the people around him have no idea how much is going on under his surface.
