In the excerpts from Left Handed and A Son of the Middle Border the narrators are describing their experience as farmers, herding sheep and horses. The ways each writer writes about this same experience could not be more different. Left Handed moves through his herding scene with action and dialogue using simple language. Hamlin Garland uses the five senses to flesh out the environment, putting emphasis on rich adjectives, rather then the actions of the narrator. Their different writing styles imply they have varying commands of the English language.
The use of dialogue in each piece exemplifies their differing writing styles. There is no actual dialogue in A Son of the Middle Border in which two characters have a conversation. Garland, or instance, uses italicized short quotes from a hen, "cutta, cutta, wha-woop-squaw, squawk!" (116) and an ominous voice, "Dinner!" (119) as auditory additions to create a scene. He uses italics for these quotes to try and help the reader hear these sound clips within the scene. Left Handed, on the other hand, consists of a great deal of dialogue between the narrator and the woman, The War Split. Their conversation is straightforward, with simple signifiers between quotes like, "That's what she said to me" (320). Left Handed uses dialogue to move the story forward, where Garland uses it to amplify a scene.
Within the first few sentences of Left Handed the narrator is already in action, having moved to the top of a hill, "I turned my horse around and looked back to where I left my wife" (315). These simple scenes are crafted with simple language implying that the author had a limited vocabulary in English, as opposed to Garland who masterfully chooses adjectives. For example, compare Garland's description of the circus,
"From the time the 'advance man' flung his highly colored posters over the fence till the coming of the glorious day we thought of little else. It was India and Arabia and the jungle to us. History and the magic of the pomp of chivalry mingled in the parade of the morning, and the crowds, the clanging band, the haughty and alien beauty of women, the gold embroidered housing, the stark majesty of the acrobats subdued us into silent worship" (129).
Now look at Left Handed's description of meeting the woman, The War Split, for the first time,
"I rode over there, thinking I might get something to eat. I was without anything, so I was really hungry. After the sheep had drunk they stopped there at the lake. They lay around there in the shadows; it was pretty hot. When they were still there, I rode up to this hogan. There was a woman; her clan was Bitter Water, but her father was the same clan as my father. Her name was The War Split" (317).
Notice how Left Handed's scene is full of action and motion and Garland's scene has little to no action. Also, note how their use of language differs; they are both saying something is heightened or extreme, but where Garland choose more descriptive words like "highly colored posters" Left Handed simply states "really hungry". Garland wastes not a word and fills his description with adjectives that excite the senses like, "clanging, haughty, alien, stark, and silent".
The juxtaposition of these author’s writing styles about essentially the same experience is what is compelling about reading these two pieces together. Their differing writing styles work to highlight each author’s strengths, and more clearly define their writing styles. Each author succeeds in accomplishing a specific feeling, and environment in their writing. By reading Garland’s vivid scenes we are able to see Left Handed’s stark descriptions more clearly.
-Margaret-
Welcome to the Blog for Craft of Creative Non-Fiction at Mills, English 226, Fall 2011. Here is where you write your reader responses for the books we are reading this semester. These responses examine the scaffolding of the book in regards to presence and identity of the narrator. Don't forget to respond to your colleagues' blogs as well.
Margaret, I really loved the way to read these two authors together. Using their different writing/speaking styles to highlight the others' work is a great idea. You are right on the dot in pairing the stark, simply statements of left-handed with the longer and more vivid descriptions in the Garland piece. I also liked that your post focused on what each author brought to each others stories, rather than what they may be lacking; much more exciting to read than a stark compare and contrast! It is true that you can see both authors command of the english language, and that it imparts a great deal of action, but what else could this mean? apart from familiarity or education, how do these types of sentences affect the scene? Is a flower still a flower if it is described in a word or in a paragraph...this is a bit of a tangent but i liked how you point out the way these techniques work together. One thing that would be interesting to explore is the use of different voices in the texts. Left-handed speaks to a woman and they have a direct interaction with each other while Garland only speaks about his mother. We hear her voice indirectly. In a story like these, which are so heavy on scene, description, and a-for lack of a better word-vague emotionality, where do the voices of others fit in? Do they enhance the text, interrupt it? It seems like these texts are so good at setting a mood, that an outside factor such as another voice may take away some of that 'story magic'
ReplyDeleteoOkay, well Diana said it all. Yes, good post and you did a good job of seeing them together. It's interesting because one experience is in a family and the other is solo, but the stress and labor are central through the different voices,
ReplyDeletee
Margaret,
ReplyDeleteOne thing about dialogue that I find so interesting in these stories is the "person-ality" of it. You touch on this a bit by describing the way Left Handed produces substantial dialogue between people, but Garland seems to produce most of his dialogue from animals and, perhaps by extension, the land. What does this tell us about the ways that these narrators are connected to the world? Left Handed's narrative seems to be connected entirely on "person-al" levels. He's leaving his wife - in fact his entire sense of home is derived from this person - and he comes to a woman - who brings him some epiphany. The land is almost nonexistent. He is unattached also to the animals - even to the point of leaving them entirely. Garland, on the other hand, seems completely connected to the world through the land and his work there. In a way, the animals are his community, grounding him in everyday life, displaying unique personalities (some violent, others passive, some playful, etc.). Again, I can't help but feel the connection to class - Left Handed has no land, only people; Garland possesses (not owns, it's not strong enough a word) his land, and needs people less.
Margaret, I like the absolute clarity of your post. You have an excellent job framing their contrasting styles. Something Garrett said in a comment on my post popped up for me again as I read your post: there's such an obvious difference in intentionality here. Can we even say that Left Handed is making craft choices? We are told that he remembers every word of every sentence he ever heard. He certainly doesn't seem to add on details or embellish scenes. He just dives right in and tells you what he did and saw and thought. Does he have an awareness of audience? He is telling this story to someone who is writing it down, but it doesn't give you the sense of being altered in any way for the audience. Such a contrast with Sir Flowery.
ReplyDelete