I CHEERED when I realized this novel was in the third person, solely because I certainly prefer the distance that comes with an outside perspective. However, I have definitely learned that first person perspective can add that extra layer of depth through the wonderful works I have read so far in this class.
Well, my happy thoughts lasted until I reached chapter three (i.e. not very long), where I was suddenly hit with the transition to the first person perspective. After briefly accepting the change in viewpoint, the narrator then began using the second person perspective combined with the first person perspective. Such confusing changes in narration and perspective forced me to reflect on the previous scenes: I felt like I could only fully understand the scenes I read earlier AFTER having read a number of pages more (Proust: the sequel??). As a result, I can say, with some confidence, that Bombal almost weaponizes perspective to force us, the reader, to feel the emotions her former lovers caused our main character.
In addition of utilizing perspective to tell the story, Bombal uses a fragmented story approach to tell this retrospective tale. It is important we consider that the main character has already passed away, and the events of these memories have transpired a good amount of time before they were recounted. Therefore, by drawing on the subjectivity and emotion in the work, this piece can more accurately be called a reflection.
Furthermore, as I briefly discussed earlier on, I noticed quite a few similarities to Proust in both the organization of the story and the narration. When it comes to organization, this story was also modelled in a somewhat circular fashion like Combray was. I noticed this when the main character was talking about Ricardo at the start of this novel: she first talked about how he wronged her, and followed this information with the steps leading up to this event. This progression of events really made me see the similarities to Proust. Moreover, this story, like that of Proust, is retrospective and contains a lot of speculation. In that regard, I believe it is fair for us to cast some doubt on the validity of the main character’s story. Additionally, the constantly shifting perspectives makes it difficult for us as readers to accurately interpret her memories, which further makes the work more interesting to interpret.
Alas, I leave you all with a question that I was asking myself: what makes a novel, like the Shrouded Woman or Combray, a strong reflective piece? Is it the amount of raw emotion displayed by the author, providing a large sum of description to the reader or even forming a connection with the reader? I find these qualities to almost be on a spectrum, but I’m excited to hear your thoughts!
Side Note: I will be re-reading this work prior to attending the discussion. I definitely struggled with analyzing it at first and want to look at it a few more times.