Sons and Lovers renders a fractured narrative by capturing the dynamic nature of the “inside the text” through rigorous analysis of its characters (and their actions); this is achieved thanks to the rhythmic pattern of the narrative in which thesis and antithesis are constantly placed against each other. The text makes a decisive shift from traditional omniscient narration to a more ambivalent narrative in which the idea of ​​"singular truth" (and narrative) is demolished and subsequently reconstructed. The disintegration of the singular narrative allows the reader to recognize the dynamic nature of the points of view (POV) represented while observing the complexities involved in what the text “tells” and “shows.” The reader is asked to "trust the story and not the person telling it", but this too is complicated by the "doing" and "undoing" in which the narrative is continually engaged. This essay seeks to examine the shift from omniscient narration to more fragmented narration with reference to the chapter "Love Between Boys and Girls"; 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 keep in check the different theoretical approaches to the text to further explore the meaning of the ambivalent narrative unfolded. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The text has characteristics of both realist and modernist fiction that contribute to the ambivalence of the narrative; the conflicts that arise within appear to be an attempt to weave multiple threads into the narrative while allowing for intense internal involvement. However, there is no sense of closure that arises from such conflicts and the “doing”/”undoing” in the text ends up giving it the texture of a refined interiority. If so, any investigation of narrative technique must begin with the conflicts that occur within the text, whether social, gendered, ideological, or primarily narrative. Conflicts based on social and ideological bases 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 interested in the narrative conflicts that occur in chapter 7 and the changes they make to the remaining narrative. To do this, however, you need to start with Part I and observe the changes that occur in Part II. Part I of the novel had its fair share of ideological conflicts; the narrative voice was quite consistent and even omniscient to a certain extent. The narrative strategy was in tune with what realist narrative usually follows: that of narrativizing reality. The first part narrates the life of the Morels focusing on Paul, William and Mrs. Morel in a triangular relationship. Here, the narrative is often partial to Mr. Morel, even to the point of criticizing him for his class membership (and the characteristics that come with it) and taking Mrs. Morel's side in most discussions. Mr. Morel is relegated to the margins of the text, while Mrs. Morel with her "men" is brought to the center; sometimes, no effort is made to maintain a neutral narrative. Equally, however, there are moments that act as “compensators” in reaction to the distorted narrative. One such incident is the scene where William is dead and Paul is there at the mine to pick up his father. “Paul saw everything except his father leaning against the truck like he was tired.” This statement on the part of the narrator lodistances himself from Paul and Mrs. Morel while sympathizing with Mr. Morel's plight. Here, the intentionality of the narrative seems to be to balance the injustice previously inflicted on Mr. Morel; it becomes a sort of juggling act. In chapter 7 (Part II), the narrative strategy changes; the omniscient narrator is no longer present. At the beginning of the text, at certain moments, the narrator's voice was Paul's point of view, openly influenced by his mother's opinions. Some sections were partial but there were also some compensating moments to balance the former. However, in chapter 7 and thereafter, the narrative voice is entirely taken over by Paul. This is evident from Miriam's first description in the chapter; it is far from being objective since it seems to carry with it "an intense analytical tension" determined to point the reader in a certain direction. There is no longer any room for any deduction or for following an alternative line of thought. The reader is supposed to follow Paul in his evaluation of Miriam (using adjectives such as mystical, sensitive, possessive, and "romantic at heart"). However, it would be harmful to accept Paul's judgment (and that of the narrator) as Miriam's evaluation as the last word of the text, for what she "tells" and "shows" to the reader, is completely different. The narrative is dialogic in nature and is imbued with the multiplicity of perspectives and voices. To analyze the text it is necessary to recognize the "other voices" existing within it that challenge the dominant narrative mode (that of Paul's voice). At this point, I try to analyze Miriam's portrait in chapter 7 as an example of reading against the dominant narrative from within. Many readers choose to accept the narrator's portrayal of Miriam as the legitimate representation of her character. If one were to begin working on this characterization, it is interesting to note the differences in the narrative handling of Miriam in Part I and Part II. The first part had briefly introduced Miriam just as the other characters had been and with an episode that marked her entrance. ; shy, questioning, a little resentful towards strangers, she disappeared. try it." “No,” she cried, pulling away. “It doesn't hurt at all,” Paul said. "It tightens pretty well." “No,” she cried again, shaking her black curls and shrinking. “I just wanted to try,” he said softly. He waited grimly and watched. Miriam finally let the cock peck from her hand. He let out a little cry: fear, and pain because of the fear, quite pathetic. But he had done it, and he did it again… This episode is interesting because it allows us to get to know Miriam without Paul's interference; the characterization drawn is that of a sensitive (defensive?) girl, shy by nature but willing to learn if given the opportunity and encouragement. This characterization is rejected when we turn to Part II. The opening paragraphs of chapter 7 seem to establish her identity as what Paul tries to see it as: mystical and possessive. His possessiveness is made evident at various points in the chapter; one incident is when he smothers his brother with "love". "What are you making such a fuss about?" Paul exclaimed, all in pain from his extreme emotion. “Why can't you be normal with him?” For Paul, Miriam acts with a frenzy that directly contrasts with her mother's reserved demeanor. He treats her poorly for her "failures" as he sees them, but hardly attempts to look past her narrow-minded judgments. In the chapter it is always Paul who looks at Miriam and never Miriam who looks at herself. He sees her as he wants her to be and ignores (as well as detests) unwanted characteristics; even his determination to learn, appreciated in the first part, is rejected. "Because I like itlike this?" Something in his chest always recoiled from these intimate, intimate, dazzled glances of his. shadow in it; it is more glittering... It seems dead to me. Only this glittering is the reallife. The form is a dead crust. The glittering it's really in." And she, with her little finger in her mouth, reflected on these sayings. They gave her a sense of life again... She was able to find meaning in her abstract and difficult speech... The fence episode and the extract above are evidence of Miriam's attempt to break out of her "foggy" state ” holding on to Paul's abstract speeches and getting closer to him – as he achieves the 'shine' that is 'real life'. But as she does so, Paul hates her. It seems that he is forced not to embrace what Miriam offers him with their communion. It can also be argued that it is his mother's influence that governs his life. So while she was away with Miriam, Mrs. Morel became more and more agitated. She looked at her watch and said, coldly and rather tiredly, "I've been far enough away tonight." His soul, hot and exposed after contact with the girl, has shrunk. “You must have been right at home with her,” her mother continued. He didn't want to answer. Even though he likes and desires Miriam's love. company, he is constantly attracted to his mother; it is this conflict that is evident throughout the narrative. In the chapter, the narrative makes no pretense of being fair to Miriam, because all Paul hates in Miriam are her flaws, not his. He hates getting close to her emotionally because of her blasphemous possessiveness; At first he doesn't realize that it's his mother's possessiveness that prevents him from bonding well with Miriam. Even when he realizes this, he does not try to correct it because the conflict is too complicated to resolve. The ambiguity of Paul's conscience also influences his characterization of Miriam and leaves us with an incomplete picture. Paul's perspective is plagued by "confusion, self-deception, and desperate self-justification"[6] that constantly cloud his views of Miriam. If so, it is difficult to determine the “truthful” characterization of Miriam. Yet, Miriam's portrait must arise from the constant "doing" and "undoing" of Paolo's narrative; '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 anchored to his mother and emotionally attracted to Miriam at the same time. The "doing" and "unmaking" of (Paul's) narrative in the chapter allows Miriam's characterization to be embellished with the texture of refined interiority. The first step in recognizing the complexity of her character is to accept that Miriam can exist independently of what the narrative allows her to be. If so, she is at the same time sensitive, possessive, vital and sober. Furthermore, Miriam's character is shaped by everything that is said in the narrative, but also by everything that is not said. According to the narrative, she is hysterical and yet this is not the case. It is true that Miriam transforms everything to become religious; he accepts and rejects his sexuality at the same time. But is Miriam the only hysterical one in the novel, as the narrative wants us to believe? Or to extend the topic, is Miriam actually the hysterical one? Perhaps. The first question is more important for discussing narrative strategy; there is textual evidence that Miriam has accepted her sexuality despite having previously denied it (and been afraid of it). But there was a serpent in her Eden… she was afraid she wanted it. She condemned herself. Then came the agony of new shame... Did she want Paul Morel, and did he know she wanted him? …. Yet there she was under the self-accusation of wanting it, tied to that torture stake. In contrast, Paul is vehement in denying any sexual tension.