I enjoy reading works of writing, but I rely on the author painting me a detailed picture of whats going on and what is being said. The language obviously being a key factor in bringing the story to life. Once the dialog between the characters kicked in, I lost complete interest in the story and honestly just wanted to get to the end. It wasn't that it was difficult or impossible to follow, it just ruined the flow.
The one part of the story I did like though, was the comparison on page 425 between how men treat women the way they treat sugar cane. When they are done chewing the sweetness (life) out of them, they throw them away.
Do you think dislike and frustration was what Hurston was going for when she chose to write the dialogue between characters in dialect? You say you understand why Hurston made this choice- can you please share? Also, what is the effect of having only the characters' speaking in dialect and not the narrator? What made the simile between women and sugar cane appealing?
ReplyDeleteI didnt think of it that way but it is entirely possible that Hurston wrote with dialect to frustrate the reader.
ReplyDeleteI think she made the choice to write the dialog that way to bring you to that place, to that time, to that culture. It gives it substance, a southern flavor from that period.
The effect of choosing to only put the dialog in dialect is to give a clear and uninterrupted vision of what the surroundings are and what is happening outside of the characters speaking. Putting the narration in dialect would make reading this story almost impossible to decipher when someone was speaking.
The simile was the most detailed and visual part of the story. If you know what cane looks and tastes like and how you eat it, the figurative language becomes that much more potent. I knew exactly what Clarke was referring to.