Sons and Lovers renders a fractured narrative capturing the dynamic nature of “inside the text” through rigorous analysis of its characters (and their actions); this is achieved by the rhythmic pattern of narration, consisting of theses and antitheses constantly opposed to each other. The text makes a decisive shift from traditional omniscient narration to a more ambivalent narrative where the idea of ​​“singular truth” (and narrative) is demolished and then reconstructed. The disintegration of the singular narrative allows the reader to recognize the dynamic nature of the points of view (POV) represented while examining the complexities involved in what the text “tells” and “shows.” The reader is asked to “trust the story and not the teller,” but even this is complicated by the “doing” and “undoing” in which the story continually engages. This essay seeks to examine the transition from an omniscient narration to a more fragmented narrative referring to the chapter “Love between boys and girls”; it will also focus on Miriam's characterization as key to examining contradictions within the narrative with chapter-specific references. Furthermore, the essay will attempt to master the different theoretical approaches to the text to further explore the meaning of the ambivalent narrative deployed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The text has characteristics of both realistic and modernist fiction that contribute to the ambivalence of the narrative; the conflicts that arise within seem to be an attempt to integrate multiple strands into the narrative while still allowing for intensive internal engagement. However, such conflicts create no sense of closure and the “doing”/“undoing” in the text ends up giving it the texture of refined interiority. If this is the case, any investigation of narrative technique must begin with the conflicts that arise within the text, whether social, gender, ideological, or primarily narrative. Conflicts based on social and ideological motives are quite evident throughout the text, starting with the conflicts between Mr. and Mrs. Morel in chapters 1 and 2 or even between William and Mrs. Morel later in the text. However, I am more concerned with the narrative conflicts that arise in chapter 7 and the changes they cause to the rest of the story. But to do this, it is necessary to start with the first part and observe the changes that occur in the second part. The first part of the novel had its share of ideological conflicts; the narrative voice has been quite consistent and even omniscient to a certain extent. The narrative strategy is in line with what realistic fiction usually follows: that of telling reality. The first part chronicles the lives of the Morels with a focus on Paul, William and Mrs. Morel in a triangular relationship. Here, the narrative is often biased in favor of Mr. Morel, even going so far as to castigate him for his class affiliation (and resulting characteristics) and to take Mrs. Morel's side in most arguments. Mr. Morel is relegated to the margins of the text while Mrs. Morel and her “men” are brought to the epicenter; sometimes no effort is made to maintain a neutral narrative. However, along the same lines, there are moments that act as “compensatory” in reaction to the biased narrative. One such incident is the scene where William is dead and Paul is there at the mine looking for his father. “Paul saw everything except his father leaning against the truck like he was tired. » This statement from the narrator pushes him away. of Paul and Mme Morel whilesympathizing with the state of Mr. Morel. Here, the intentionality of the narrative seems to be to balance the injustice inflicted on Mr. Morel earlier; it becomes a kind of juggling. In chapter 7 (part II), the narrative strategy changes; the omniscient narrator is no longer present.Earlier in the text, at times, the narrator's voice had been Paul's point of view openly influenced by his mother's opinions. Some sections were skewed, but there were also a few compensating moments to balance out the early ones. However, in chapter 7 and even later, the narrative voice is entirely taken over by Paul. This is evident by the first description of Miriam in the chapter; he is far from being objective since he seems to carry within him “an intense analytical tension” determined to direct the reader in a certain direction. There is no longer room for deduction or following an alternative line of thinking. The reader is meant to follow Paul in his evaluation of Miriam (i.e., using adjectives such as mystical, sensitive, possessive, and "romantic in her soul"). However, it would be detrimental to accept Paul's (and the narrator's) assessment of Miriam as the final word of the text, for what she "tells" and "shows" to the reader, is entirely different. The narrative is dialogic in nature and is infused with the multiplicity of perspectives and voices. To analyze the text, we must recognize the “other voices” that exist there and which call into question the dominant mode of narration (that of Paul's voice). At this point, I seek to analyze the portrait of Miriam in chapter 7 as an example of reading against the dominant narrative from within. Many readers choose to accept the narrator's rendering of Miriam as the legitimate portrait of her character. If we were to take this characterization to work with initially, it would be interesting to note the differences in the narrative treatment of Miriam in the first part and the second part. In the first part, I briefly introduced Miriam as the other characters had been and with an incident that marked her entrance. “She was about fourteen years old, had a dark pink face, a pile of short black curls, very fine and free, and dark eyes. ; shy, questioning, a little resentful towards strangers, she disappeared. “No,” she cried, stepping back. “It doesn’t hurt at all,” Paul said. “It bites pretty good.” “No,” she kept shouting, shaking her black curls and shrinking. “I just wanted to try,” she said in a low voice. He waited somberly and watched. Miriam finally let the bird peck her hand. She let out a little cry – in fear and pain from fear – rather pathetic. But she had done it, and she did it again... This incident is interesting because it allows us to know Miriam without Paul's intervention; the characterization drawn is that of a sensitive (defensive?) girl, shy by nature but eager to learn if given the opportunity and encouragement. This characterization is rejected once we move on to Part II. The opening paragraphs of chapter 7 seem to establish his identity as what Paul seeks to see it – mystical and possessive. His possessiveness is highlighted at various points in the chapter; an incident occurs when she smothers her brother with "love". “Why are you doing so much FUSS?” » cried Paul, suffering from his extreme emotion. "Why can't you be ordinary with him?" » For Paul, Miriam acts with a frenzy that directly contrasts with her mother's reserved attitude. He treats her badly for her "failures" as he sees them, but he barely tries to look past her blind judgments. In the chapter, it is always Paul who looks at Miriam andnever Miriam looking at herself. He sees her as he wants her to be and ignores (and hates) undesirable characteristics; even his determination to learn, appreciated in the first part, is rejected. “Why do I like it so much?” a shadow within; it's more shimmering... It seems dead to me. Only this shimmer is real life. The shape is a dead crust. The shimmer is really on the inside. » And she, with her little finger in her mouth, meditated on these words. They gave her a sense of life again... She managed to find meaning in her abstract and struggling speeches... The closing episode and the excerpt above are evidence of Miriam trying to come out of her "foggy" state » by clinging to Paul's abstract speeches. and moves closer to him – as she reaches out to the “shimmer” that is “real life”. But in doing so, Paul hates her. It seems that he is obliged not to embrace what Miriam offers him through their communion. It can also be said that it is the influence of his mother that governs his life. So, while he was away with Miriam, Madame Morel became more and more angry. She glanced at the clock and said, coldly and a little tired: "You." Her soul, warm and exposed to the girl's touch, shrank. "You must have been at home with her ", his mother continued. He did not want to answer. Although he enjoys and desires Miriam's company, he is constantly attracted to his mother; it is this conflict that is evident throughout the narrative . In the chapter, the narrative does not pretend to be fair to Miriam, because all Paul hates about Miriam is her faults, not his own. He hates getting close to her emotionally because of her blasphemous possessiveness at first; , he does not realize that it is his mother's possessiveness that prevents him from establishing a good relationship with Miriam. Even when he realizes this, he does not try to rectify it because the conflict is too complicated. to be resolved The ambiguity of Paul's conscience also affects his characterization of Miriam and leaves us with an incomplete picture. Paul's view is plagued by the "confusion, self-deception, and desperate self-justification"[6] that constantly cloud his views of Miriam. If this is the case, it is difficult to determine the “truthful” characterization of Miriam. And yet, the portrait of Miriam must arise from the constant “making” and “unmaking” of Paul’s story; “painting” and “overpainting” produce a “strange and unique tension” in the chapter that remains unresolved.[7] Even until the end, Paul struggles to resolve his conflicted state of being both anchored to his mother and emotionally attracted to Miriam at the same time. The “making” and “unmaking” of (Paul's) narrative in the chapter allows Miriam's characterization to be embellished with the texture of a refined interiority. The first step in recognizing the complexity of her character is to accept that Miriam can exist outside of what the narrative allows her to be. If so, she is both sensitive and possessive, vital and restrained. Furthermore, Miriam's character is shaped by everything that is said in the narration, but she is also shaped by everything that is left unsaid. According to the story, she is hysterical and yet, she is not. It is true that Miriam transforms everything to become a nun; she simultaneously accepts and rejects her sexuality. But is Miriam the only hysterical one in the novel, as the narration would have us believe? Or to extend the argument, is Miriam really hysterical? Maybe. The first question is more important for discussing narrative strategy; there is textual evidence showing that Miriam accepted her sexuality even though she had denied it earlier (and was afraid of it). But there was a snake in his.