As a novice to style, the class we had today was very enlightening. I never believed that so much could be deducted from a single sentence. With this basic knowledge of style now in my head, I can go ahead and read Flaubert in a much more enriching way. His style is one that I have never read before. The descriptions of certain objects are amazing. His sentences, paragraphs, and chapters vary in length drastically. Chapter two is much longer than chapter one, and each paragraph not only introduces a new idea but it does it in different lengths. This format combined with the use of punctuation and commas maintains the reader interested.
He is able to describe monotony but his book is exactly the opposite: “Every Monday morning, the dealer in second-hand goods, who lived under the alley-way, spread out his wares on the sidewalk” (Chapter 2). This aspect is perhaps the one that I like the most about his style. Assimilation is something that I rarely notice, but Flaubert can do it so his words not only describe what is in the book but the book itself. A perfect example is one of the passages we read today: “The priest first read a condensed lesson of sacred history” (Chapter 2). The reader can see that the word “condensed” not only describes the priest but the sentence. It is small and to the point. The way style is used can only make me think of time. Flaubert has made each sentence so perfect that you could write several pages about it. Even though I doubted this could be possible Flaubert pulled it of. How long he took seems short in comparison to what he did.
I like the close reading here, but would have preferred seeing a close reading of another section of the work.
ResponderEliminar