Not So Ordinary After All
The
protagonists of The Mezzanine and Ms.Dalloway are what we would
consider mundane protagonists, who have no aspirations or grand adventure to
embark upon. However, Howie and Clarissa Dalloway capture our attention and pull
us into the minute details of their lives and thoughts. As the authors uniquely
develop each stereotypical mundane character’s life, emphasizing Woolf’s point
in her essay that anyone’s life can be a novel, the question arises, how do
Baker and Woolf make the ordinary extraordinary?
Maybe
the simplest way to tackle this question is to delve into a quick analysis of
how the authors build the characters. In Ms.Dalloway, streams of
consciousness are interwoven around Clarissa’s, allowing us to experience the
world not only through Clarissa but also through the perceptions of other
inhabitants of Clarissa’s world. Using multiple streams Woolf adds sublayers to
scenes, such as in today’s discussion of Clarissa’s and Peter’s conversation.
If there weren’t any streams of thought the book would be quite bland as we
would read the niceties and nothings exchanged by Clarissa and Peter. In a way
the criticism, memories, and internal reactions to each other is what makes the
conversation a conversation, in addition to adding complexity and dimension to
their relationship. Ms.Dalloway as Mr. Mitchell described it, feels cinematic
as we swing from one character and their thoughts to another.
In
contrast, The Mezzanine feels like a microscope zooming in, examining
the interests of Howie while disregarding the rest of the world. The book is built
on the premise that what excites Howie must also excite the reader and a comradery
is built between both the reader and Howie while in Dalloway we feel more as an
observer than a participant. By making the reader a participant, Howie is in
many ways detached from the social world that defines Clarissa and instead it
is Howie’s fascination with the inanimate world and occasional social
interaction that make him extraordinary. Never do we perceive Howie through the
eyes of others making Howie the only person who can give insight on Howie.
Obviously,
these novels are quite different even though these novels are both supposed to
represent the idea of a 20th century novel with their exploration of
characters. While it is indisputable that both authors are quite talented in
making ordinary life interesting, I think that Woolf would disagree with Baker’s
ideas on character and novels. Baker is regularly challenging us throughout the
book by saying “hey look at me I can write about anything” while Woolf is
saying “hey look life is full of these things that make it interesting.” Maybe
if Woolf were to read The Mezzanine she
would criticize Baker for being a bit materialistic, by focusing so much skill
on “making the trivial and the transitory appear the true and the endearing.” How
does the ordinary reflect the multiple dimensions and depth of the characters? Should we actually consider these books as novels
about mundane topics (Howie) or should it be that these books express the joy in
life itself (Woolf)?
I like how you make the comparison of us as readers being friends with Howie while we’re just watching Clarissa. I agree with you on that Woolf would disagree with Baker, but I think she would prefer Baker over the Edwardian writers. I think that they both are similar as they show how life is interesting, but Woolf focuses on showing how its complex while Baker focuses on how it isn’t trivial.
ReplyDeleteGreat comparison between the perspectives of "Mrs. Dalloway" and "The Mezzanine." I believe we should consider these novels as stories that represent the joy in life. If Baker and Woolf wanted to emphasize the mundane objects in life, they would not have use for plot in their novels. There is a reason why we follow Howie going up the escalator. There is also a reason why we follow Clarissa preparing for her party. Without these underlying plots, there would be no insight into Howie and Clarissa's character; just into the objects they notice in the environment around them. The plot in both novels exists to convey to the reader that the characters have something to look forward to after the book ends and are not hopelessly lost in their thoughts about the mundane. In essence, the plots are Baker and Woolf's means to express the joy in Howie and Clarissa's lives, not to inform the reader of the dull and ordinary.
ReplyDeleteI love your comparison of Woolf and Baker! I completely agree with your ideas about the reader's relationship to the protagonists. However, I would also argue that a key difference between Woolf and Baker is that Woolf seeks to examine all aspects of a character, no matter how painful, while Baker tends to focus on details that bring Howie joy. Woolf isn't afraid to delve deep into a character's consciousness, exposing their hopes and fears and inadequacies. As a writer, Woolf believes that each character deserves a thorough exploration of their consciousness, even if that exploration may uncover uncomfortable or unfamiliar topics. This writing philosophy is in contrast to Baker, who mostly focuses on Howie's own happiness and creativity. The two authors certainly take different approaches to crafting characters, but both remind us to reassess daily objects or people in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI do think that these books are about mundane topics but these books make the mundane interesting. I agree because Baker and Woolf are very different because there is more plot and drama in Woolf's story. Baker is more focused on minute details. I also love your comparison of their relationship with the main character of the story. Baker makes it seem like Howey is talking to us and with Woolf we are more peeping in on their brain. I think that the two authors do "make the ordinary extraordinary" because even though these topics might seem dull they make them interesting.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I agree with you about your characterization of The Mezzanine and our role in it as readers. In the Mrs. Dalloway section, I'm not totally sure about Clarissa's stream of consciousness being the dominant one. The book is called Mrs. Dalloway, and that would suggest a centering around Clarissa, but I could just as easily see the book centered around Septimus and Lucrezia. As for the comparison, I think that The Mezzanine focuses on building a character through interactions with the world rather than with other characters, as Mrs. Dalloway does.
ReplyDeleteLove these comparisons you make between both books we've read. It does seem on the outside that they're both just mundane protagonists. I also agree on how the two books are completely different in the sense that The Mezzanine tended to focus on Howie and his own thoughts and interactions while in Mrs. Dalloway it was not focused on one character, but rather a bunch of different ones and we only get glimpses of their thoughts in each section. Baker focuses more on tiny details, while Woolf's is more of a traditional story-line with multiple characters and points of views.
ReplyDeleteWow! I love your analysis of the two books we've read. The analogy of a microscope zooming with Baker's narrative with Howie was quite accurate. And I do think that Woolf might be a little put off by "the Mezzanine," considering it has a more materialistic focus, but I wonder what Baker thinks of Woolf?
ReplyDeleteI think your comparison of Howie and Clarissa was dead on, aside from them capturing our attention with every detail of their lives I agree with you, but the Mezzanine was one mind while Mrs. Dalloway is many minds, but all of them can be connected to Clarissa so it works.
ReplyDelete