Paris Peasant, to me, was a story about everything, but also about nothing. I felt as though I was more reading a journal of a man as opposed to a story. There did not seem to be any concrete plot, nor did it feel as though there was one specific theme the writing was grounded in. Instead, it was like being inside the mind of someone going through the daily life of someone who had many thought provoking things to say. If there was any plot or theme, it went over my head, as I felt somewhat confused while reading and found it a bit hard to follow, although this does not mean I enjoyed it any less. In the same way I did with Proust’s Combray, I found this text to have wonderful descriptions, which made it enjoyable and fun even when I was confused.
After reading this, it left me wondering, why do we always look for some sort of plot or structure within what we read? Maybe not everyone does this, but I always find myself looking for a beginning, middle, and end whenever I tackle reading something new. Maybe this is due to the fact literature is not typically what I read beyond school. This then leads me to wonder if it is a fault to always search for something more? Sometimes writing, such as Paris Peasant, can just leave you with your thoughts, welcoming you to your own interpretations of what you have just absorbed. It is not that Paris Peasant did not have meaning, but more so what did each of us take as the meaning after reading?
After reading 2 texts, I have noticed a few similarities in writing style, and although I am not sure if this is due to these being older works, or to do with translation and both coming from romantic languages, I think it is worth mentioning. Firstly, as mentioned before, both works were extremely descriptive, more so than most pieces of literature I’ve read in the past for school. I highly enjoy this, and I hope this carries on as a common theme throughout other works we read in the term. The second is how long the sentences are. Many of the sentences went on for much longer than what I typically read, or write for myself, with the writing containing more commas and semi-colons than periods. I think this is interesting as I do not know the reason for both of these features, however, I do think it could be due to translation as well as the structure of romantic languages.
“why do we always look for some sort of plot or structure within what we read?”
Indeed, this question of our expectations was the question I asked in my lecture on Proust! 🙂
And as I put it in this week’s lecture, on Aragon:
“None of this fits too well, perhaps, within the traditional confines of a novel, which imposes order by means of its devices of plot and character, beginnings and endings. Here we are always in the middle of things, attentive to their enchantment and the vertigo that they induce.”
This book, I suggest, follows the logic of distraction and daydreaming: following one’s instinct and thoughts as they occur to you. It refuses to be bound by the tyranny of plot.
Hey Laura! I agree that this story didn’t feel like a novel, it was more of reading someone’s journal about their life. As I was reading the novel, I reread many of the lines, questioning if I accidentally missed the plot of the novel. I find that’s an interesting question, since I was very confused that there didn’t seem to be a plot and I kept trying to look for one. I think perhaps having a plot in stories makes it more interesting and it captures the reader’s attention more easily. As plots usually demonstrate some type of change in characters and it helps develop storylines. I personally enjoy reading how characters grow from the beginning to the end. Thus, may be a reason why I didn’t enjoy this novel as much.
Hi Laura! I felt the same about the text; it seemed to keep moving and yet have no plot. I did also find “Paris Peasant” and “Combray” to be pretty similar. They were both centered on one narrator and detailed their thoughts and surroundings. Your question also brings up some interesting ideas. It’s true we often look for some sort of structure, but, like this text, even without much of a structure, we were still able to explore and learn from it.
Hi Laura! I completely agree a book like this is a very different structure compared to other books read in English classes in high school. This type of style was definitely a first for me as well and I really liked the question you had. I think we look for it because for me at least that’s how we are taught to write our stories, essays, and even when analyzing stories we read in class. I am really looking forward to our classes discussion to see if others thought about this as well.