you want to do what with your life again?

[jade_sabre]

I originally created this syllogism in the wee hours of the morning before spring break, while I was frantically trying to write my critical history paper of Vanity Fair.  Uh, I think it's funny.  Y'all might not.  But it's kinda a glimpse into what my paper basically boiled down to (and what happens in the field that I am considering).  My subject was basically the role of the narrator in Vanity Fair and how he relates to the structure and characters of the novel.

"The Circuity of Narratological Discussions in Vanity Fair," or, "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, Thackeray-Style"

If you bring up the fact that the characters are based on real people

then you get sucked into an argument as to whether or not Thackeray is subjective or objective to said characters.

 

If you get stuck in a subjectivity/objectivity argument,

then you end up discussing whether or not the narrator succeeds in his portrayal of the characters

and then you end up coming out either for or against Becky or Amelia.

 

If you discuss being for or against Becky or Amelia,

then you will discuss how the narrator treats them

and you might go for Lady Jane

and you might look at how their relationship affects the structure.

 

If you come out for or against the narrator,

Then you will probably come out for or against the structure of the novel.

 

If you discuss the moral of the novel,

Then you will probably end up concluding it either

a)      has no moral or

b)   has a horribly depressing moral.

But if you decide the novel has a horribly depressing moral,

Then you might be tempted to wonder what kind of people in Thackeray's life caused him to write such a sad story...

Comments

[rosaleeluann.livejournal.com]

Haha. :) Isn't that just how it goes sometimes? I think I'll stick with my paintings. I can pretend that I understand how they progress.

[emerald-happy.livejournal.com]

cookies....?

*sighs*