An aspect of Emile Zola’s La Bete Humaine that was not closely considered in class is Jacques reaction when Severine admits to him her past with Grandmorin. She fears the knowledge will cause Jacques to fall out of love with her; however, he responds calmly. “‘Not going to love you any more? Me! Why? I couldn’t care less about your past. It isn’t my business…You are Roubaud’s wife, but you might just as well have been someone else’s,’” Jacques responds to Severine’s confession, quite callously, indicating his relationship with Severine has more to do with need than want. “So you were the mistress of that old chap! Seems funny, somehow,” Jacques continues. Roubaud’s jealousy seems the consequence of feelings of inadequacy whilst Jacques’ reaction reveals his noncommittal attitude toward Severine that most likely originates from his violent and animal response to the female. While Roubaud adores and idolizes his wife and seems truly in love with her, Jacques’ desires for Severine are more circumstantial when he realizes that she is the only woman around whom he can suppress the instinctual, murderous response. Because he believes her guilty of Grandmorin’s death, his natural instincts to kill can be restrained; however, once Severine reveals Roubaud to be the murderer and she to be only his required accomplice, Jacques’ strength dissipates, and he finally murders Severine.
The situation causes one to wonder what Zola is implying about the power the human mind can have over impulse or about the inevitability of impulse or about the psychology of impulse. Because Zola was a naturalist, it would be most appropriate to conclude that his view is pessimistic about humans’ ability to control themselves, as the naturalists believed that environment and heredity determined character.
Yes, one question one can also ask what passages like these imply about the power of the novelist's mind to describe such emotions, or the lack thereof. We saw that Zola was rather the moralist (see his commitment in the Dreyfus affair), so if there is a moral agency that can evaluate the actions of these characters, what does this say about the naturalist's worldview? Norris, by making his narrator more present in the book, might be more clumsy as a novelist but perhaps also more honest?
ReplyDeletedear cristoph... you will never be able to touch frank norris or emile zola.. so stop trying. they are not clumsy as novelists... their work is being MANGLED BY YOU THOUGH!!!! "what passages like these imply about the novelist's mind to describe such emotions, or the lack thereof" ---- wait.. hold on homie.. are you saying that the NOVELISTS' "MIND" is actually at work here? no. you can't be saying that. no. these novelist's are writing blind and are UNAWARE OF WHAT THEIR WORK MEANS.. IN FACT each respective novelist's mind is SO UNPOWERFUL that they don't describe emotions.. but somehow the words are on the page.. god's plan son. god's plan. and also, we can see the novelist was NOT POWERFUL enough to stop the critical chirstophics so your question could be IGNORED which it was... or IT DEMONSTRATES THE NOVELIST'S ABILITY TO PAINT A PICTURE.. THE LIKES OF WHICH YOU COULDN'T SEE, OR COMPREHEND.. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ALL WENT TO IU AND ARE DUMB
ReplyDelete