English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Giraldi - What's He Done For Me?
What a departure from Aristotle and his poetic dogma! I always enjoy reading about someone who has bucked the system for good cause. (Being a rebel without a cause is ignoble and annoying). Because of Giraldi's work, which was both "difficult and laborious" to produce, poets have been able to explore innovative ways in expressing themselves (273).
I would even go so far as to say that his writing was anti-Aristotelian. One action obsolete? How would you pull such a stunt off without coming dangerously close to bringing the integrity of the work to question? How do you include multiple action in the work without confusing the audience? Giraldi has an ingenious answer: organic unity. And what better model than the ultimate piece of artwork, the human body? So, just as the body is proportioned and balanced, so must the poetic work be the same.
I have been exploring the function of literature according to the theoreticians we are reading this term. It seems that these innovations of Giraldi (including multiple works in the romance) lead us naturally to the function of the poet, which he spells out on the bottom of page 275. He asserts that one must do his best to praise virtuous acts and condemn vicious acts. By including multiple actions within a single work, a greater number of noble actions will be praised, and likewise, a greater number of ignoble actions can be censured.
I love Giraldi's justification of removing Aristotle as the law-maker of the romance. Basically, on the grounds of language does Giraldi give Aristotle authoritative dismissal.
Back to function... Giraldi is careful to list examples of poets who have praised the right stuff and cursed the wrong stuff. This leads us to decorum in literature. Decorum mandates that certain things happen a certain way and certain words are spoken depending on the speaker, the one spoken to, and the setting. This element is crucial for the sake of a poet's ethos. Who heeded Giraldi's words on decorum? Of course, Shakespeare was a master at this. Kings speak as kings speak. Peasants speak like peasants.
Giraldi also mentions the danger of excessive exposition. He says (rather humorously) that lengthy expositions are an annoyance in Italian and in Latin. I find that funny, because I can't imagine too much exposition being pleasant in any language (Yes, I'm talking to you, Melville).
The question I come to is this: Is Giraldi the pioneer of the romance? Was Pigna? Either way, he was wise to set the rules. Otherwise, the romance might have ended up like leftover meatloaf (Tragedy) in the Greek kitchen. There would be no flexibility or rationale to color outside the lines. This carries over into pop culture today. Think about it. Has Girlaldi's discourse effected the modern-day screenplay? I can't imagine sitting through an entire movie where one single character acts toward a certain goal until the end. Where would we be without movies like Magnolia. Talk about multiple action!