It's all about the vase.
The reason why I despise the inclusion of the rejection letter in part three so much is simply the vast amount of doubt that it inspires in the reader. In that long ago AP Literature class, we had a brief discussion on the inclusion of the letter, however, I just couldn't bring myself to go back to the beginning of the novel and see for myself whether or not the suggested revisions were done. I didn't care too much about some of them - she could simply have forgotten the name of the fountain, she could have been increasing the suspense by having Cecilia go in her underwear into the fountain, and the addition of the surrounding details were simply necessary to the progression of the story.
But the vase - that is the backbone of the entire story. By changing this, all the seams of the entire story are instantly unraveled. As Robinson states in his article, "Aporetic questions will always haunt such moments. Was the “real” vase the un-lifelike Ming? Was there a vase? If not, was there a fountain?" I'm inclined to take this a few steps further, were there even a Robbie and Cecilia? Was Lola actually attacked? Did Briony actually commit her crime? Was there even a story?!
As Robinson says, "The furniture of realism can be changed or removed at a stroke." The vase is the entire basis of the story. It was "Uncle Clem's vase" that he received during the war, risked his life to save, and then ultimately found its way to become the prized possession of the Tallis household. It is the thing that causes Robbie and Cecilia to realize their love, and eventually, it is the symbol of their ultimate destruction when Betty drops it, "She said the pieces had simply come away in her hand, but that was hardly to be believed" (262). The vase is the symbol of Robbie and Cecilia's love, it is the glue that hold the entire story together. If it can simply be changed from a "Ming" to a "more lifelike" Meissen, what else has Briony changed in the novel?
No comments:
Post a Comment