Although Marguerite's paragraph, as it stands, focuses more so on the structure of such a frenetic narrative--or the way in which the pluralistic voices work together in Suleri rather than the implications of the individual voices themselves--I think some of Mike Laws's claims in ("Suleri's voices") about how Suleri is using each of the voices would ultimately prove helpful to understanding Marguerite's prose. She wonders whether or not "the structure of SuleriÕs writing reflects the structure of her life, or the structure of her understanding of her life"; Laws' piece, in contrast, wonders whether or not "such an appropriation of voice[s] inevitably stands is almost as if the writer condescends, leaving behind her typical syntax and diction to speak at a lower level of the English tongue." I think that both are true, to a certain extent, although each seems to be missing something: Suleri obviously structures her narrative in a deliberate fashion (it's her first book, and a big one, too) which would of course mean that the structure of her autobiography reflects "the structure of her understanding of her life" to a certain point; just as well Suleri remains somewhat cold hearted and objective throughout her novel, in a way that causes her appropriation of other voices to appear on one hand as a play at authenticity, and, on the other, causes it to seem like parodying or condescension.

Victorian Web Victorian courses

Last modified 25 April 2011