Words are what we make up at an instance from what we know and what is happening at the moment. Thoughts make up much of these words, but so much goes on that it takes more thinking to come up with words to make sense. For Michel De Montaigne, essays were like diaries based on continuous ideas and words that seemed endless. Decisions and choices judged the actions of what a person was thinking, yet reflects how a choice can be made up at an instance.Montaigne's acclaimed written works ascertain the attitude of how much the effect of common language defines the simpleness of imagery.
Readers look for ambiguous meanings within a text, themes or the proper use of literary devices define the attitude of what the author is narrating. Montaigne’s freestyle of handwriting his thoughts, in other words piecing them together so that his readers can get the gist of the mind-boggling that goes through his head. Because Montaigne’s techniques and topics correlate to David Foster Wallace’s quote “What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at any given instant,” thus it is determined for readers to seek the author’s innermost thoughts. A part of what the world perceives is said under limited sayings and is typically missing out on the universal aspect of things if there isn’t enough to say. Montaigne’s essays generally broadens the idea of sharing Wallace’s least known facts between “sketch the outlines” and the idea of “all interconnected for words.” It’s easier to focus on one subject and continuously talk about it’s relevance in Montaigne’s essays. For example, one essay named “Apology for Raimond Sebond” was not necessarily a discrete apology for Montaigne’s friend, but the history and comments of the word apology itself. Apology is connotated into so many diverse meanings alone and primarily serves to teach readers the reality of deeply explaining one word that has a true significance.
If people see the essence of writing with confidence and the perspective of actually writing words that could have been from a seminar or a discussion with some other being/beings. Montaigne’s style reflects discussions that have happened, even if it was already discussed early on. The prospect of bringing back a subject is to establish augmentation between peers and to reach a different conclusion. Gradually, audiences will realize that his style opens a window and supports Wallace’s statement. By experimenting with common knowledge and common sense, Montaigne’s efforts for bringing back history, especially ancient Roman/Greek history, he displaces bland, start up ideas. Doing this, he establishes himself with potential concepts or opinions. “What goes on inside [...]” by Wallace is his convenience for looking for an identity, likewise is foreseen in Montaigne when he acknowledges his essays as something that disgusts him, but digresses by writing anyway. It’s the author's attitude that objectify or subjectify their organization of words. The same goes for the author of Pride & Prejudice, Jane Austen, who also has a different style of writing that audiences also admire for its ironic love story and family expectations.
The name is what is suppose to be in the whole book of Pride & Prejudice, judgement and pridefulness in 18th century England. There are some ambiguous moments in Austen’s book, but Austen keeps her readers on the edge of true pride and doesn’t go straight to a climax at the height of the book. Montaigne’s style of explaining events are related to Austen’s style of holding back the main conflict until the end. The principal points of getting the reader to know what really happens comes at the near end of chapter for both authors. Although Austen deems on a questionable love story between two unlikely people, Montaigne engages in stories he has experienced or other aspects from what he’s learned and implements it in his writing. Austen’s style jumps around at separate events, similarly like Montaigne’s style of going from one subject to a whole other topic. Examples of Elizabeth being at a ball, then transitions to bedsides or friends’ houses. Montaigne’s essays consists of events that happened to him at that time and he had the need to write about it.
The basis of words relies on the speaker who is willing to share whatever they have on mind. Sometimes it takes more words to explain what is going on just as David Foster Wallace states in Good Old Neon. Montaigne’s techniques and style of writing entertains audiences who desire stream of consciousness at it’s fullest or Austen’s interpretive style of writing that readers want to know more and if that one special scene was going to happen or not, or simply end badly. It all depends on both these authors who narrate their language with inconceivable insight and knowledge. It’s like an image carries a million words to say and this how early writer displayed their work for people of common interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment