I keep thinking about The Girls of Slender Means. The conversion of Nicholas seems to be the central thing in the book (or at least a central thing). And yet it is also very vague--I can't tell exactly why he converts. Is it the murder that he sees in the press of people at the victory gathering in front of Buckingham palace? Or, more likely, is it the nostalgic avoidance of reality of some of the members of the May of Teck Club?
And then the question is, is the vagueness of this central aspect of the book an error on the part of the author? Or is it a point in itself? It's possible that the oblique way that Sparks alludes to Nicholas' conversion points to the ineffability of conversion.
1 comment:
spark was keen on playing with narrative. Example: she once wrote a murder mystery in the present tense (oh my, my brain hurt after that one!)--but we never actually find out the essential things of a murder mystery--the who/what/why.
So she often hides the "essential" or "central" parts of her stories. I think Nicholas' conversion is just such as case, as you point out.
While it may not be effective (though I love your thought about ineffability), it certainly wasn't an error on her part.
Post a Comment