Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Oh, hey Percy. What's up?


So we know this novel revolves around six characters and their inner-monologues; Bernard, Susan, Rhoda, Louis, Neville, Jinny, and Percival. Wait, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…

It seems weird that Percival is such a big deal. He’s pretty much the focus of the last half of the section that we read for tomorrow, yet he is severely restricted: he doesn’t get a voice, and all we hear about him are the feelings of the other characters towards him (particularly Neville, if you know what I mean). And it seems like he gets put on a pedestal by the six actual characters, who constantly insult each other or insult themselves by comparing themselves to the outstanding qualities they each have. But they don’t insult, or even compare themselves to Percival. They do talk about how great he is, but not in comparison. In the words of Bernard, Percy (I nicknamed him because I can) is “what indeed his is – a God” (98).

Considering that we read all about Woolf’s deepest feelings about character development in Character in Fiction, it seems weird that we have this sort of half character thrown in here. Not that Percy is at all “poorly” developed in the Edwardian sense (Woolf describes them as “... never interested in character in itself” (44)), he just seems almost unnecessary. What does he bring to the table up to this point in the novel? He’s already gone – but why was he there? 

2 comments:

  1. Good questions! (But the bad characters, for Woolf, are Edwardian ones, not Georgians.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Crap. I just realized I was quoting Woolf who was quoting Mr. Bennett. But now it's fixed!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.