It is probable that Robert Louis Stevenson gave the task of explaining the assault to Mr. Enfield rather than Mr. Utterson because Mr. Enfield, as "the well-known man about town," is likely to be a better storyteller than Mr. Utterson. As a man about town, Mr. Enfield is going to be quite comfortable in social situations, a good talker, and an engaging raconteur; Mr. Utterson, on the other hand, is a lawyer who would be...
It is probable that Robert Louis Stevenson gave the task of explaining the assault to Mr. Enfield rather than Mr. Utterson because Mr. Enfield, as "the well-known man about town," is likely to be a better storyteller than Mr. Utterson. As a man about town, Mr. Enfield is going to be quite comfortable in social situations, a good talker, and an engaging raconteur; Mr. Utterson, on the other hand, is a lawyer who would be more used to telling the straight facts, devoid of excess description, suspense, or impression. Indeed, the narrator describes Mr. Utterson as not being very talkative at all, saying,
Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of rugged countenance, that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty, and embarrassed in discourse [...]. At friendly meetings, and when the wine was to his taste, something eminently human beaconed from his eye; something indeed which never found its way into his talk [...].
Thus, Mr. Utterson seems to speak with economy, and though he is by no means dispassionate or apathetic, his humanity appears in his expression though not in his speech. The bottom line is, Mr. Enfield will tell the story in a way that will engage Stevenson's readers more than Mr. Utterson would.
No comments:
Post a Comment