Is this epilogue boastful? My first gut read of it was, "well this stuck with me over the years, but do you know what I am not actually sure I'd behave differently even after all this". Hedging is right in there: 'makes me try to', 'often' rather than 'always', and no indication that anything has changed other than thoughts. I think in C…
Is this epilogue boastful? My first gut read of it was, "well this stuck with me over the years, but do you know what I am not actually sure I'd behave differently even after all this". Hedging is right in there: 'makes me try to', 'often' rather than 'always', and no indication that anything has changed other than thoughts. I think in C21st we might very well frame in this way: sure this story has some power, but I can't promise it's enough.
However, I do think your point is interesting, Sean, and carries a wider truth about one way framing can seem awkward for our modern expectations. A v interesting discussion.
Cheers. George and others ask the really interesting question, though: how *might* we explicitly communicate a story's resonance and moral worth without seeming in any way boastful about that story? Extremely difficult task, I'd say, but well worth the effort if it can be convincingly pulled off.
I put 'apparently' and 'seeming' alongside boastful because as you suggest, Niall, it's not clearcut. What tips it for me is the fact that the Intro is bordeline boastful too about the story's resonance for the narrator and therefore, by implication, for the reader. The Epilogue has a similar flavour. It's subtle, and it's hardly a crime -- in fact I like it, if I haven't made that clear. But I still think most modern writers would cut it, because they wouldn't want any of that flavour in their story.
It's not even a particularly interesting point I'm making tbh. George asked might we Clubbers cut the Intro and Epilogue? And I'm just saying yes, I think most of us would.
Agree, Niall, and I suppose a reader (then or now) might reject too much certainty in the epilogue. Ambiguity improves it, I think. One thing we know for sure is that the narrator, misanthrope or no, is still thinking about the incident, and in that way, if no other, he has been changed.
Is this epilogue boastful? My first gut read of it was, "well this stuck with me over the years, but do you know what I am not actually sure I'd behave differently even after all this". Hedging is right in there: 'makes me try to', 'often' rather than 'always', and no indication that anything has changed other than thoughts. I think in C21st we might very well frame in this way: sure this story has some power, but I can't promise it's enough.
However, I do think your point is interesting, Sean, and carries a wider truth about one way framing can seem awkward for our modern expectations. A v interesting discussion.
Cheers. George and others ask the really interesting question, though: how *might* we explicitly communicate a story's resonance and moral worth without seeming in any way boastful about that story? Extremely difficult task, I'd say, but well worth the effort if it can be convincingly pulled off.
I put 'apparently' and 'seeming' alongside boastful because as you suggest, Niall, it's not clearcut. What tips it for me is the fact that the Intro is bordeline boastful too about the story's resonance for the narrator and therefore, by implication, for the reader. The Epilogue has a similar flavour. It's subtle, and it's hardly a crime -- in fact I like it, if I haven't made that clear. But I still think most modern writers would cut it, because they wouldn't want any of that flavour in their story.
It's not even a particularly interesting point I'm making tbh. George asked might we Clubbers cut the Intro and Epilogue? And I'm just saying yes, I think most of us would.
Agree, Niall, and I suppose a reader (then or now) might reject too much certainty in the epilogue. Ambiguity improves it, I think. One thing we know for sure is that the narrator, misanthrope or no, is still thinking about the incident, and in that way, if no other, he has been changed.