Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

История литературы / 29. William Thackeray

.docx
Скачиваний:
112
Добавлен:
13.02.2015
Размер:
19.83 Кб
Скачать

Realism was a trend that concerned itself with the middle classes. They were really despised in the 18th and 19th centuries, and now they come into forefront. If the English Empire wanted to make itself prominent in literature, it should rely on the heritage of its realistic writers because they really expressed energy of the middle classes (comprise merchants, lawyers, owners of plants and the ones who tried to establish their own enterprises. Middle class citizens worked for their own benefit, and only then for the benefit of their own country. Their advantage was the ability to balance these two approaches. That was the difference between the middle class and aristocracy. The local colour of daily life was the subject matter of realists. They hardly cared about the heroes of the past and they disregarded the future. That’s why the main concern of the realistic writers was everyday life, and every step within it.William Makepeace Thackeray (1811 – 1863)

Thackeray’s unhappy life influenced his literary legacy. He was a son of Anglo-Indian parents. He was very young when he was sent to school. And there, being very young, he felt very lonely and unhappy. Then he studied at Cambridge. But his career at Cambridge was very short and unsuccessful. He even got a small fortune, but he was unlucky enough to lose it all making bad investments. Then he even turned to art. He illustrated some of his own books himself, and after it he started a career of journalist. It was a perfect school for a would-be writer, because Thackeray was a born essayist. When “Vanity Fair” brought him success he was in his late 30s. His domestic life was rather unhappy, because his young wife lost her reason, and since that time he didn’t have a home, only a club. Everything that Thackeray gained – success, money, fame – came too late, because at that very point he was disappointed in everything, though inside he was even more domestic than Dickens. He was even more vulnerable, and though some critics say Thackeray is quite a cynic, bad intentions of people hurt him very much. He pretended that he was a philosopher. It was his vision and his mission to describe everything from the position of a philosopher. When readers consider the list of his works, they see that “Vanity Fair” is the climax. What came before was not yet ripe, what came after was also not a masterpiece.Thackeray introduced the notion of “snob” into literature and into the world. A snob is a person who looks down upon people whom he thinks to be lower in social status, at the same time he looks up at people who are superior to him. All his life Thackeray fought with snobs, esp. in “Vanity Fair”. And though critics say that he was a snob himself, he was not, because he just tried to find his own position and to formulate his own vision upon facts. That’s why from the point of view of his position in the novel, we may say that he is always above, because he learned how to write a panorama of English life and to show what life really was (Henry Fielding was Thackeray’s predecessor. Thackeray learned a lot from him. On the one hand, he adopted the same panoramic vision, on the other hand, he used the strategy of coming to the proscenium where it is possible to talk to the reader directly, to explain things to the reader, to generalize everything that was necessary and to share his approach with the reader). “But my kind reader will please to remember that this history has "Vanity Fair" for a title, and that Vanity Fair is a very vain, wicked, foolish place, full of all sorts of humbugs and falsenesses and pretensions.” So, Thackeray was at his best in “Vanity Fair”. He chose the title intentionally, because it is the allusion to Ecclesiastes. Vanity being connected with arrogance (one of seven deadly sins) is the mosta dangerous feature, because vanity may have many manifestations. In “Vanity Fair” Thackeray tries to explore all of them. He gives the reader not only a panorama of English life, but the panorama of European life in general. At some moments when Thackeray comes to the proscenium in the novel, he puts himself outside the book. That’s why they say that Thackeray acts like a puppeteer who rules the puppet show. In Thackeray’s puppet show we deal with the stream puppets (на ниточках) and Thackeray pulls the strings of his dolls to make them move and act. Another image critics use to describe the position of the author is the way the whole panorama is rendered. In this respect Thackeray is very much different from Fielding (Fielding gives his readers a linear picture; Thackeray gives us a merry-go-round with him being at the top of it”. Thackeray in “Vanity Fair” gives his reader two parallel fates – Emilia’s and Becky’s. But they are not parallel proper. They develop together, but here and there they are connected with each other. Some critics say that Becky Sharp is Thackeray’s best character, because Thackeray portrays the world he knows best. He portrays the evils of self-interest, parasitism and snobbery. Thackeray regards the whole world as a panorama, and he regards it with the cool observer’s eyes. Exactly these pieces of novel are the best ones – the pieces of panorama of life. His second quality was inherited from Chaucer. Thackeray was able to capture individual speech of the characters, the rhythmic pattern of the character’s speech and even the individual idioms. Tha value of this feature cannot be underestimated. Thackeray’s characters in “Vanity Fair” are counted in hundreds, but every character is an individual, because he or she speaks his or her own language and has typical feature. E.g. Rowdon’s ignorance and inability to keep up the conversation: "O--ah--Gad--yes, so do I exactly, Miss Sharp," the other enthusiast replied. "You don't mind my cigar, do you, Miss Sharp?" "Jove --aw--Gad--aw--it's the finest segaw I ever smoked in the world aw," Thackeray was a master of improvisation. When he comes to the proscenium, he shows good humour and great deal of self-criticism. While reading the writer’s commentaries any reader should acquire the ability to catch any little turn of phrase the writer uses. In the world Thackeray depicts there’s no place for intelligent will and intelligent performance. There are qute many protagonists in the book, but no heroes. That’s why the subtitle is “The Novel Without a Hero”. It was also one of Thackeray’s strategies. Practically all the characters in “Vanity Fair” may be strong but only for some period of time. No matter they win or are defeated, all the characters are ineffectual. Sometimes the characters don’t realize that they are not masters of their own fate. To depict a panorama of European life Thackeray employed several techniques. 1) He imitated Henry Fielding and his manner of presenting narration. His narration is divided into a number of episodes. He comes to the proscenium and talks to the reader directly, being very wise and sincere. 2) He transformed his position and it led to his main strategy. He represented life as a puppet show, being himself a puppeteer. Within this strategy he organized his narration not as a linear stretch of episodes, but in the form of a merry-go-round. This composition enabled Thackeray to return to some episode and to some people, and to introduce all sorts of changes, because merry-go-round structure allowed Thackeray to place practically all the characters at the prime of life and at the moments of decay. Moreover, this composition let Thackeray show how fate exercised its talons on people, making some of them even more confident in themselves and making others absolute loosers. 3)Thackeray used two more composition devices. Becky Sharp was really a pivot and the main puppet. Her character may be really approached as a device to produce a dramatic effect upon the reader. She is very well defined as a character, that’s why she becomes very credible. When she departs the Pinkerton’s school, Thackeray gives the reader a number of flashbacks about her past, and the reader comes to know why she was so tough. “The world is a looking-glass, and gives back to every man the reflection of his own face. Frown at it, and it will in turn look sourly upon you; laugh at it and with it, and it is a jolly kind companion; and so let all young persons take their choice. This is certain, that if the world neglected Miss Sharp, she never was known to have done a good action in behalf of anybody”. Becky was really as tough as a man. She elbows her way through all the other characters and through all the challenges. And each time she achieves social extension, she still goes on. This enables Thackeray to show Becky from different perspectives. But still there are moments when she is pushed back by failures and exactly at this moment Thackeray shows that Becky has no ill humour. She has nothing to lose – this is an explanation to all her achievements and failures. She loves only her dear self and she enjoys the game. Despite all this Thackeray likes Becky Sharp, because she is really his best puppet, and all the other puppets are exhibited against her background. If to approach the novel as a set of tragic episodes, Becky is much happier than all the other characters. Thackeray makes her happier than others because he has respect for the energy to survive under all sorts of circumstances. Thackeray used an opposition Becky vs. others characters, esp. vs. Emilia. When Emilia is at first opposed to Becky the reader treats Emilia as a kind, naïve and sentimental girl. Almost all the characters believe she is too naïve and even a bit silly. In the flow of narration we suddenly understand that Emilia is far from being a positive character. She possesses selfishness of a deeply-rooted parasite vine. She uses Dobbin, who is absolutely helpless & ineffectual. All of a sudden we come to realize that she uses his passive helplessness as a weapon. But she is coward; she is stupid to organize anything more affectual. In Vanity Fair Thackeray portrays the world he knows best. The evil of self-interest, of parasitism, of snobbery released in him a detached ferocity. In the world as portrayed by Thackeray there is no place for intelligent will & performance. Individuals appear to be swept up & carried along. The cunning & the unprincipled winning of the weak are helpless & they get no sympathy from Thackeray because they are always affectual.