Ann Carson's Short Talks confused me, because I found it difficult to define a thread that linked the short sections together. Part of why I love the hermit crab essay format is that, when done properly, it connects multiple threads, ideas, into one understandable concept. I realize that Carson's piece is a lyrical essay and not a hermit crab essay; however, for a piece to carry significant value to the reader, it should come to a point at the end. Even if there isn't a point at the end, and the story is left to lazily drift off the page and into our thoughts, then the author should at least frame her/his reader in the title.
France in Twenty-Five Exposures, a piece that I found similar to Short Talks, takes a similar approach in terms of format. Buuck splits sections into snapshots of places, people, and experiences that make up France as a whole. The title and the section titles (meat, the bellmaker, etc) tell the audience what they're viewing and how it ties into a larger picture. I feel as thought Short Talks fails to create that larger picture for it's readers. That said, it was still an enjoyable piece to read, since all of the sections were strong and thoughtful.
I completely agree. I couldn't find a connection between all of the individual pieces, but obviously there was one because why else would Carson put them all together? Like you, I also really enjoyed them despite my confusion. I thought that it was really fascinating how each piece held its own significance and special place in the overall work.
ReplyDelete