In "The Woman who loved a Snake" the question is brought up about the true nature of the snake. Was it a snake? Was it a person? Was it literal or metaphorical? Mabel wasn't clear about it at all, and wasn't corporative in clearing up the confusion. It leads us to believe that perhaps this snake is both a man and a snake.
But this is unlikely. Mostly because it is commonly accepted that snake people do not exist, and if they did the story would be a lot more than just about adultery. In class we explored that perhaps it is our concepts of storytelling that is the real problem. Personally, I believe that the entire story wasn't real. I don't believe her husband closed the door at night, I don't believe that a man came inside her house just they way she described it. The entire story was a metaphor but reflected behind a very real like story. But at the same time there were points of realism in there. There was obviously a man. And they obviously talked at times away from her husband. The story stands in some sort of middle ground between reality and metaphor. That's why defining the snake as real or metaphorical was so strange to Mabel, it would be inconsistent with the rest of the story.
The fact that another perspective on storytelling exists, forces us to think about stories in general. What are our expectations of stories, especially personal accounts? How is Mabel's different? Why is it so difficult for others to understand her method? In class this brought up more complex concepts of linguistics that simply made my head spin. I am aware that language plays a huge part on how one organizes the world cognitively. How Mabel's language has given her a different perspective on storytelling and perhaps even the world, I can't even imagine.
I think that Mabel would laugh at us all for looking so deeply into her story. :) Like you said, she was pretty vague and unclear on details and not in a hurry to clear anything up. People tell stories in certain ways for a reason. They know what they're saying, not saying, how they're coming across, etc. It is natural to want to know things for sure but I think the purpose of the story was to just take it for what it is-for what you view it to be and accept that. If the story was not meant to be like that, she would have clarified!
ReplyDelete