Saturday, June 30, 2012

An Old Pattern

As a self-proclaimed lit geek, I have to confess... I never finished the French epic, Song of Roland.  Sure, that doesn't sound so bad.  Plenty of people never even start Song of Roland.  The thing is, from the half I read Song of Roland is a terrific story.  You have Roland and his best pal Olivier taking rear guard for King Charlemagne's army.  You have all sorts of fighting and sacrifice and sinister betrayels, everything that makes a great Midevil Romance.  The problem isn't the poem; the problem is that I'm too used to modern storytelling conventions.

Song of Roland follows the same pattern as Shakespeare's Julius Ceaser, and I hit the same snag when I tried to read it: the hero dies halfway through.  Okay, maybe it's more like two thirds into the story.  The point is, the hero's gasping his last and there's a whole bunch of book left.  I can't help going `what gives?'  Whithout a centeral character, who am I supposed to root for?  What holds this story together?

In both tales the hero's death comes through betrayel, and neither book is over until the wrongdoer is properly punished.  That means the focus changes from a single character (Roland or Julius Ceaser) to those left behind.  (Mark Anthony and his followers, Charlemagne and his courtiers).  The book feels like two stories sandwitched together; one story about the tragic loss of the title character, and one story about a vendetta against someone who betrayed a group. 

Maybe the poets thought the audience needed to `live' with the title character and get the full impact of his death in order to feel the need for justice.  After all, the stories were written before modern police work or easy travel.  Communities would have been closer. Matters of justice would also be personal matters -or someone else's problem.  Which makes me think of another point; both Julius Ceaser and Roland are politically important.  Roland is Charlemange's right hand guy, and Julius Ceaser is... well... Ceaser.  There is no `somebody else's problem here.  The death of these guys is a national matter. 

So that brings up the question, is this story structure obsolete- at least in Western culture?  Justice isn't carried out by the nearest relative anymore, or even the community.  And people don't need convinced that having a murderer running around is a bad thing.  Plenty of mysteries plop a body on stage in chapter one and that's enough to convince the audience that the murderer must be brought to justice before he or she can strike again. 

Or maybe it's just hard to sell a story where the hero dies halfway through.  (Though from what I've heard, Game of Thrones never had a problem...)

11 comments:

  1. {thoughtful look}

    You have a point about the storytelling conventions being different in those times. Yet I don't think that's the only problem. Even now, I think we'd have trouble ending either "Julius Caesar" or "The Song of Roland" with the character's death. {half-smile}

    Just think: you have this story about this great person who does amazing things, and it builds up to a dramatic death steeped in betrayal...

    P.S. The perpetrators were brought to justice one year later.

    That's what I call an anticlimatic ending. {lop-sided smile}

    Yet I think you have a point. We were following the deeds of one character. Then we switch to a group, and not a small enough group to watch a few characters in it. That is a big shift to expect a reader to just accept in the middle of the book. {bite lips}

    If I was re-writing these, I'd shift the focus to one or a few individuals key to the mourning, the murder investigation, and/or the trial. So you're still focussed on individuals, just not the same one. {Smile}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was one thing I appreciated about Beowulf. The bit after he died was short, and Wiglaff was interesting enough to carry it through. I agree, if you were focused more on some of the other characters who survive, the stories would be a lot easier to read. Shakespeare switched focus to Mark Anthony, but I think he did it too late to really work. I mean, Ceaser's dead, and there's Mark Anthony giving his speech and you're going `hey, who's the new guy? Oh, I guess he's the hero now.' (It's been awhile since I read the play but that's how I remember it.) If Julius Ceaser had been told totally from Mark Anthony's POV that would've been a really cool story. You'd have Anthony's sense of grief and rage, but you wouldn't feel like the story should be over, so the part where the villains get their comuppence would actually feel climactic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have a good point about Beowulf. The original does switch to another character, and that does make it easier to continue. {Smile}

    Yes, it would be better to introduce the new character you expect people to follow after the first's death before said death. I don't know that they need to be the main character the whole time, but I'd like them to already have a name, face, and position that stands out from the extras and bit parts. I think a major supporting character could take over pretty easily - like an aide, a protege, or a younger relative. Then again, I think you're right that seeing Julius Ceaser from Mark Anthoy's point of view would be great. {SMILE}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right, they wouldn't have to be the viewpoint. Probably part of the problem I had with Julius Ceaser was the fact that I read it instead of watching it on stage, where Mark Anthony would've been more of a presence, because his actor would've been there, even if he wasn't saying much. Hmmm.... maybe I should re-read the play sometime and see how much he's actually there getting lost among the other nobles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Or see if you can borrow a film of a performance and watch it. I remember one of my teachers warning me not to judge Shakespeare when you read it, but when you watch it performed. She claimed that often Shakespeare's plays read dry and boring, only to become interesting, even compelling on stage. {Smile}

    I agree: even just even just seeing the actor who plays Mark Anthony leaning on a pillar, interacting with other nobles, and reacting to what Ceasar does in the earlier scenes would help a lot. You've seen his face, and know he's one of the nobles by his dress and actions. If we've heard him talk with someone, even learned his name, so much the better. {Smile}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's a good idea. I tend to seek out videos of the Shakespeare plays I already love, but rarely look for the ones I don't like as much. I should change that. (Maybe if I saw it, I'd actually understand The Tempest.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I enjoyed The Tempest when I got to watch it. It's fantasy, with magical spirits and everything. On the page, I'm not sure how those come across, but when I saw them on stage, they were quite eyecatching, dressed in leotards, tights, and feathers. Of course, wardrobe may make different choices, but I bet they'd still try for something fantastic. {SMILE}

    I found the plays more watchable than readable, myself. Even the tragedies I didn't care for were more bearable when performed. With the comedies I actually enjoyed, they're far more entertaining performed than read. {SMILE}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin


    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete
  8. `Midsummer Night Dream' is one I saw before I read, and I was really glad I did. It seems a bit like `The Tempest' in that I think it would be really hard to follow if you just read it without getting to watch it first. I agree that they're best enjoyed on stage -some of the humor just makes so much more sense when its being acted out. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, "Midsummer Night's Dream" was a little confusing the first time I saw it. Fortunately, I was young enough to like the fairies and the donkey head. Even better, it had no admission charge, since it was done in the park by the local community players. So we went back so I could see the donkey and the fairies again, and it made more sense later.

    I would have been terribly confused if I'd had to read it first. Especially with no donkey head to get my attention. {Smile, wink}

    Yeah, some of the humor just doesn't work as well when you're reading. Truthfully, the same goes for some of the sad parts. I find seeing someone act upset a lot more powerful than a play script's words to be spoken with minimal description. {Smile}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh `Midsummer Night's Dream' would be so much fun live! I saw a really good video version. (Sorry, no idea who produced it or was in it or anything. It was awhile ago, a library video before they switched everything to DVD so I lost access to it.)

    You're right that seeing someone act upset or happy is a lot more compelling than just reading it. My favorite `Much Ado About Nothing' (The one with Emma Thompson) does an amazing job conveying that Benedick and Beatrice really love each other even though they snip at each other all the time, because of the actors' expressions, the way they look at each other, and after each other. It's so lovely and romantic -and nothing you'd get just reading the script. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm glad you saw a good video of "Midsummer Night's Dream." I hope you find ti again sometime. {Smile}

    A good writer can convey feelings on the printed page if they try. However, I think Shakespeare rarely tried. He figured the actors would take care of that. Sure enough, they do. {wink, SMILE}

    Anne Elizabeth Baldwin

    ReplyDelete