We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The Narrative Rhetoric in Léa Silhol's La Tisseuse: Contes de Fées, contes de Failles.
- Authors
Chen, Fanfan
- Abstract
The diversity of contemporary French narration renders the canonical definition of le fantastique useless. Writers challenge Todorov's definition that the fantastic emerges as the reader hesitates between the supernatural and the natural explanation for the unlikely event. Léa Silhol (1967), a storyteller of mythic-poetic-fantastic style, figures among these writers. An inheritor of romantic fantastic storytelling, Silhol delves into the mental and psychic depth of legendary figures, mostly goddesses and fairies, to make them question their own identity and observe humans from their perspective. Her feminine and universal writing about the fantastic exemplifies the new-generation French fantastic. Like the mythic tisseuse in her tales, Silhol weaves stories with a new texture, with an imaginary étoffe. Just as the mythic and legendary weavers are associated with water, she makes use of it to achieve her verbal alchemy, the narrative rhetoric of which operates from three angles: mythic, structural, and stylistic. Silhol's transtextual writing of myths from different cultures creates mythic résonance of the collective unconscious from linguistic différance. The narrative structure of the tales embodies the inversion of vision in Bachelardian alchemy of the imagination. Lastly, a scrupulous analysis of the author's diction that corresponds with the thematic threading of tales and their narrative structure will illustrate her dominant style of harmonism.
- Subjects
LA Tisseuse: Contes de Fees, Contes de Failles (Book); SILHOL, Lea; FRENCH women authors; FRENCH fantasy fiction; MYTHOLOGY in literature; FEMININITY in literature; IMAGINATION in literature
- Publication
Arcadia -- International Journal for Literary Studies, 2012, Vol 47, Issue 1, p78
- ISSN
0003-7982
- Publication type
Literary Criticism
- DOI
10.1515/arcadia-2012-0003