Reticent?
Posted by Kali on October 16, 1997 at 14:08:53:
In response to you are right, written by Sherry on October 16, 1997 at 11:48:37
I guess I wanted to see a little passion exhibited by Emma and Knightly for each other. Not there though, which was my original question, How is Emma supposed to know even with all her meddling, that Knightly loves her if he never shows it openly? Not caring, not fatherly advice, but romantic love. Sorry but this bugs me in Emma. I see it as a plot boo-boo.
Sherry, does the narrator have to hand us everything on a silver platter? ;-p I think this is evidence on greater genius in plot construction rather than a mistake. Try to think of Emma in these terms:
The story is written through the filter of Emma's consciousness through most of the book. Therefore, we get narration geared towards Emma's perceptions, which are always skewed. The truth is there, but it is manifested in ways which Emma ignores or misconstrues, and so we are left to our own instincts as witnesses to the scenes. You stated elsewhere in the thread something to the effect that it's obvious that the reader is supposed to get it. Other than the fact that, as readers, we are not smack dab in the middle of the story itself, we have only as much - probably less, information than Emma herself is in possession of. If the force and irony of Mr. Knightley's vexation with Frank, among other clues, isn't lost on us, why MUST it be lost on Emma herself, who, after all, in a better position to witness than we are? The answer, of course, is her preoccupation and delusion.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
