Yes, yes! Also, I love it in 'Emma' that there is a whole story going on in the background that we only fully comprehend, if ever, near the end (i.e. Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax, the piano, the tears at the strawberry picking, etc.). Daring.
I can’t substantially disagree with this! Jane Austen was a great writer - in fact, to my mind, she was a greater writer than Flaubert. One brief word in defence of the original essay: if the novel has been about a specific technique since Austen, then it has, of necessity, been about that technique since Flaubert, too. Glimmers of free indirect discourse are detectable even in ancient literature. But Henry’s points about Austen are always worth listening to.
It may have be an artefact of the translation but it seems to me that Lady Murasaki invented free indirect style. I wrote about this in a review once, it may be on my computer, I could send it if I can find it and if you like. Galen Strawson
Jane Austen was a brilliant stylist, but since her novels are anachronistically considered "romances", some people (we all know who) have never respected her as the genius she was.
Very interesting text. That being said, an honest question: don’t we already see ‘'glimpses'’ of this seamlessness between narrator’s voice and character’s point of view even in Don Quixote? My impression is that what Flaubert did wasn’t so much invent the technique as make it the guiding line of the novel - using it to open new modalities of representation: psychological profiles, plural narrators, and narrative metaphors (Charles’s hat representing himself, the burning of the bouquet embodying the struggles of Charles and Emma’s marriage, and so on). What do you think?
In James Wood's earlier book The Broken Estate, he does give Austen her due for free indirect style in this essay pp. 32-41 (see esp. p. 38 where he mentions Flaubert).
In How Fiction Works, also p. 38, Wood is delineating a tension between the author's style and his/her characters' styles: this tension he attributes to Flaubert as a founder. On the following page he claims Flaubert established "modern realist narration." I don't think Wood is claiming free indirect style was begun by Flaubert.
Honest queation. Where does Goethe belong in this conversation?
In Wilhelm Meister and Elective Affinities, there is a huge amount of narration which is coloured by subjectivity, quotation isn't always clear, and authorial narration and inner thought blur. I've always wondered why Goethe is absent from these discussions about FID. He at least has to be considered a crucial stylistic precursor if not a practitioner or am I missing something?
In the current climate never. Authoritarianism is on the rise, given our common inability to police narcissism. Authoritarianism is common to all but generally aligns with paternal and thus anti maternal instincts, in the name of order as loyalty to some other egotist.
Although the protagonist in Sentimental Education is curiously numb, passive, and moved by broader forces, and we are held at a distance from him, and I had t encountered that before
Spot on. Although in my experience studying/teaching literature Austen is credited… I remember reading Wood’s work & being slightly surprised because I’d been taught that Austen invented or at least pioneered free indirect discourse. & that was the conventional wisdom among narratology people, & it’s what I taught my students, & indeed even the Wikipedia page on free indirect credits Austen (& Goethe interestingly, though I can’t vouch for that). But this is all in an Australian context.
You may discover that here in America, Jane Austen is famous and Flaubert is obscure.
Good!
Word.
Love your picture legend, Henry! 🤣🤣
Haha thanks
Yes, yes! Also, I love it in 'Emma' that there is a whole story going on in the background that we only fully comprehend, if ever, near the end (i.e. Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax, the piano, the tears at the strawberry picking, etc.). Daring.
I can’t substantially disagree with this! Jane Austen was a great writer - in fact, to my mind, she was a greater writer than Flaubert. One brief word in defence of the original essay: if the novel has been about a specific technique since Austen, then it has, of necessity, been about that technique since Flaubert, too. Glimmers of free indirect discourse are detectable even in ancient literature. But Henry’s points about Austen are always worth listening to.
Sure but it’s important that we get the facts right!
It may have be an artefact of the translation but it seems to me that Lady Murasaki invented free indirect style. I wrote about this in a review once, it may be on my computer, I could send it if I can find it and if you like. Galen Strawson
Yes please! I’d be very interested to read that!
I sent it as an attachment but I got a message saying it didn't go through. But it is also here, let me know if this works: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/nov/23/fiction.highereducation
Thanks I enjoyed this a lot
Thank you!
Damn it, Henry, how did you know that I can’t resist the seductive nature of an essay about free indirect style?
Hard agree, Henry, hard agree.
It makes me so grouchy!
Jane Austen was a brilliant stylist, but since her novels are anachronistically considered "romances", some people (we all know who) have never respected her as the genius she was.
When will Shakespeare get the recognition he deserves?
For what
Very interesting text. That being said, an honest question: don’t we already see ‘'glimpses'’ of this seamlessness between narrator’s voice and character’s point of view even in Don Quixote? My impression is that what Flaubert did wasn’t so much invent the technique as make it the guiding line of the novel - using it to open new modalities of representation: psychological profiles, plural narrators, and narrative metaphors (Charles’s hat representing himself, the burning of the bouquet embodying the struggles of Charles and Emma’s marriage, and so on). What do you think?
In James Wood's earlier book The Broken Estate, he does give Austen her due for free indirect style in this essay pp. 32-41 (see esp. p. 38 where he mentions Flaubert).
In How Fiction Works, also p. 38, Wood is delineating a tension between the author's style and his/her characters' styles: this tension he attributes to Flaubert as a founder. On the following page he claims Flaubert established "modern realist narration." I don't think Wood is claiming free indirect style was begun by Flaubert.
Honest queation. Where does Goethe belong in this conversation?
In Wilhelm Meister and Elective Affinities, there is a huge amount of narration which is coloured by subjectivity, quotation isn't always clear, and authorial narration and inner thought blur. I've always wondered why Goethe is absent from these discussions about FID. He at least has to be considered a crucial stylistic precursor if not a practitioner or am I missing something?
In the current climate never. Authoritarianism is on the rise, given our common inability to police narcissism. Authoritarianism is common to all but generally aligns with paternal and thus anti maternal instincts, in the name of order as loyalty to some other egotist.
Although the protagonist in Sentimental Education is curiously numb, passive, and moved by broader forces, and we are held at a distance from him, and I had t encountered that before
Wood gives Austen her due in “The Birth of Inwardness” (New Republic)
sure but his book has mislead a few people imo
Spot on. Although in my experience studying/teaching literature Austen is credited… I remember reading Wood’s work & being slightly surprised because I’d been taught that Austen invented or at least pioneered free indirect discourse. & that was the conventional wisdom among narratology people, & it’s what I taught my students, & indeed even the Wikipedia page on free indirect credits Austen (& Goethe interestingly, though I can’t vouch for that). But this is all in an Australian context.
Yes scholars know all this