Last time (I know I said this second post would come "tomorrow," and sorry, this is a long tomorrow), I gave some context to my reaction to David Foster Wallace's "Incarnations of Burned Children"; this time I'll try to stick mostly to three aspects of the text: capitalization, point of view, and title.
The first thing I notice on my third read of this story is that the main character is called "the Daddy." Or, I say he's the main character because he's the only character whose interiority is given any attention, at least until the very end, but then maybe that's not enough to qualify him for that role. There's also another character called "the Mommy" and a third called "the child." Weirdly, even though capitalization typically signifies central importance, here I think that it's being used to suggest that these capitalized characters have no importance apart from their relationship to the third, non-capitalized, character; they are to be taken, perhaps, as archetypal. The story hinges on a terrible thing that happens to their child, so in some ways this makes sense, but to me it also feels a bit distancing: these aren't characters who matter in and of themselves, even though most of the story's emotional weight is supposed to be carried by them. Which brings me to the next topic: point of view.
For most of the story, the voice sticks close to "the Daddy," which is why I earlier suggested that he's the main character, but just as the capitalization stuff suggests otherwise--pointing to the child as the main character--so does the fact that the story ends with an unexpected swerve to a close third-person narration of the child's later life. And that's something I want to look at closely, but first a minor tangent, as earlier, there's another weird swerve in the POV: "The tenant side's door outside hung half off its top hinge and moved slightly in the wind, and a bird in the oak across the driveway appeared to observe the door with a cocked head as the cries came from inside." This moment is weird because it's unclear, for instance, to whom the bird appeared to be observing the door. It's as if the story has shifted to some impartial, imaginary POV. Something that would have been the case if there had been someone there to see the bird. But in the story there isn't. All I have to say about this is: huh.
Anyway, that latter POV shift is just weird, but the former (shifting from the Daddy to the child) is actually my big problem with the story. I think I would love this story if it stuck with the Daddy and was just about his reaction to the horrific O. Henry-esque twist of what the child is actually going through. Though in this case, I think the capitalization would have to be reversed: the daddy, the mommy, and the Child. But the story, as is, seems to want to get to the broad opening outwards of exploring the child's later life, and the consequences of this one horrific event. And I think that that's great. The story has a great ending. But it's an ending that isn't set up or earned by what comes before, because what comes before, despite the capitalization, isn't about the child at all, but is just about the Daddy.
So I'm torn on this one. I think the first half is the first half of a great story. And the second half is the second half of another great story. But they don't fit together well.
I do like the title, but I'm not sure why: "Incarnations of Burned Children." I think I would have gone with "burnt" over "burned," as the former seems more like an adjective and the latter more like a past participle, to me, but that's just my own weirdness. But what I really like about the title are the plurals. Incarnations (Latin for "en-meat-enings") and children. But there's only one child in the story and only one incarnation of him immediately apparent... Even so, I like the way that the plural makes me question how it might point towards a broader significance.
Sorry for the lack of videos this time. Also, I didn't ever get around to the story of how I once wrote a book called INFINITE JEST. Eventually. But this has been a weird post, and it was weirdly difficult for me to write. But I figure it was best to get it out of the way rather than leave it unwritten. Next time I'll try for something more fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment