Narrative Flow and Genuine Storytelling
In our discussion today the topic came up of what we were supposed to take from a passage where nothing really is done or accomplished in a traditional storytelling manner or plot. The characters just talk, and while this can feel stale or useless to some readers I actually appreciate it in a way. So often in stories the plot advances at a fast pace where every single word and thought is directly relevant to what is going on, what has been happening, and what will happen. While this is necessary to convey the most efficient story to an audience, it does not reflect the reality of life where not everything has some overlying plot, reason, or direction. Telling a story with the dead space related to real life can actually provide development for characters in some more genuine ways than what can normally be found, such as here where the characters are just talking. The way someone talks to someone else can tell us a lot about them, and when we don’t have to worry about the plot advancing with every line we get a breather to focus on what is being said and on the specific interaction instead of its relevance to the overall story structure.
This dead space though does have its drawbacks, despite its more genuine nature. I for one can find reading certain versions of this technique boring, especially when it is between characters I don’t particularly care for or their dialogue itself isn’t very entertaining or informative. So while a writer can include such a scene, it also is important I believe that it should be still entertaining in some fashion. Not everyone has a large attention span, and altering the narrative’s flow to this more genuine style can lose people unfortunately.
I agree that the focus on the dialog was very entertaining as a way to tell a story. I felt that there wasnt really a need for detailed descriptions of the scene to really understand what was going on in the plot. Just reading the characters thoughts throughout the conversation was enough to help move along the storyline, and it also made the reading much quicker and easier to understand. I definitely enjoyed how the dialog opened Ellison’s shorts stories. In comparison, Melville started most of his works with long, descriptive scene setting. For example, in Benito Cereno a dialog between any characters didn’t happen until several pages into the story after an extensive scene has been laid out before the reader.
Hi Chris, I think you bring up a very striking point. Most stories that are driven by action have very little character development but when a story has “dead space” characters are able to develop in a more genuine way. This is demonstrated in two of Ellison’s stories: Mister Toussan and That I Had the Wings. I found both of these stories engaging not only due to Ellison’s use of Ebonics but also because the children’s conversations seemed truer to character, i.e. they seemed like actual conversations that little kids would engage in. I believe that the lack of action in the stories allows for closer inspection of the social and cultural norms which dictate Black identity formation during that period. The only drawback I see with dead space is that, as readers, we are not used to such plots. We are preoccupied with asking, “So What?” after reading every story, that when we come across pieces which do not have plot advancement, we become frustrated. Nonetheless, I think it is profoundly useful to take a step back and appreciate Ellison’s characterization of the young boys, despite the lack of plot progression.