Sunday, November 18, 2012

I'm no Cinderella but I think I see a pattern here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/throw-out-the-rules-and-read-the-grimm-tales.html?ref=editorials


            One part book recommendation, one part reminiscence, and one part philosophic musings, Verlyn Klinkenborg’s article Throw Out the Rules! Read a Fairy Tale manages to avoid the inconsistency that would normally come with trying to do so much by being inconsistent on purpose. With jovial nods to other pieces of literature, fanciful figurative language, and a penchant for alliteration, Klinkenborg creates a light and enjoyable piece that perfectly suits the fairytales that he himself is discussing.
            Even in the opening paragraph, he comments on the seeming abilities of an enchanted prince, stating “This is not a truth universally acknowledged in our humdrum world” which is a paraphrased version of the opening line of Pride and Prejudice. In the next sentence, he’s left the Victorian era behind and is comparing the foreshadowing of the tale to that of Sophocles. Most notably, he directly contradicts himself while simultaneously referencing a contemporary author. He mentions that “It feels at times as though all these imaginative worlds will someday converge…” and in the next sentence insists that “Someday? Terry Pratchett has already done it.” Even in less specific references, Tolstoy, George R.R. Martin, Kierkegaard, and J.K. Rowling are all welcome comparisons drawn in this article. These references hop unperturbed around the literary time stream, detaching the article from any sense of severity or regulation, and giving it a whimsical sense that only a piece on fairy tales could excuse.
            Klinkenborg also uses similes to his advantage, crafting them carefully to suit the subject matter at hand. For example, rather than reading the fairy tales, he will have “absorbed them from the air around [him], where they abide like a haunting cultural mist.” The diction even within the simile is appropriate to the vague realm of fairy tales, with ‘haunting mists’ obscuring truth and setting the atmosphere. Also fitting with the fairy tale theme, some of his comparisons are far more whimsical, comparing fairy tale rules to “embroidered samplers you might find hanging in a witch’s kitchen.” Not only topical, but delightfully childish to consider. Even the feelings evoked by these expressions differ completely- one giving a sense of foreboding and one a chuckle, and again this perfectly emulates a fairy tale.
            Most notably, Klinkenborg uses heavy alliteration to keep his work playful and fresh. In discussing the prevalence of fantasy, Klinkenborg notes that “The Tolkein-tide shows no signs of subsiding, and if your taste runs to dragons, darkness and derring-do...” which alliterates Tolkien’s ‘t,’ the ‘s’ of signs, and the darting consonance of ‘dragons’ and so forth. This musical quality that he gives this phrase allows a narrative weight to settle on his own article. When discussing the original Grimm tales and the laws that govern them, he says that they “veer vertiginously,” using not only colorful alliteration but a choice of diction that perfectly encompasses both the Grimm tales and his own work- a dizzying switch between ideas and mood that still creates an enjoyable whole.
            This article shows a genuine sense of humor and a true thoughtful creativity that makes it almost as much a joy to read as the fairy tales it recommend. As a sales piece both for Phillip Pullman’s rewrite and the Grimm brothers’ original tale, it is effective and invaluable. By creatively weaving in narrative techniques usually reserved for the media he is recommending, he creates a sense of harmony in the world, along with a desire to whip out he nearest copy of Cinderella. 


3 comments:

  1. Sarah, this article seems to be very enjoyable for you and I see your point about the author using a light and jovial tone in this piece. I thought you used great examples for what you were trying to prove in your paragraphs. My only suggestion would be to make the parts of rhetoric you used more clear. I had to go back and reread some parts to make sure I followed which part of rhetoric (diction, imagery, syntax, language, and details) you were using. I think this could possibly clear up any confusion!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sarah, I think this a very well written post and I especially like your use of interesting words like jovial and fanciful. It makes it more fun to read than if you had used bland words. You seemed to really understand the article and you give great in depth quotes and examples. I have to agree with mackenzie when it comes to your use of diction, imagery, syntax, and language. I had a really hard time identifying yours so it would be better if you clearly labeled them. Also make sure to use at least 3 of the techniques. Overall I think you did a very good job and it seems like you put a lot of effort and time into your post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. First off, let me just say how much I enjoyed reading the article. I absolutely loved the way the author wrote this piece. You did a great job describing how he created this light, enjoyable atmosphere. However, I completely agree with Mackenzie and Isha that you need to clear up which part of the rhetoric you're talking about it each body paragraph. I think the easiest way to fix this would be to go back and add topic sentences in each paragraph, stating what part of the rhetoric you're going to talk about.

    ReplyDelete