Without knowing the original passage and the larger work,
it can be difficult to parse the meaning of a sentence like the one in question.
However, we can make a few guesses by looking closely at the words and their definitions
and relationship to each other.
To "kindle" means to start
burning, or to stir up. So the flame in question is "stirring up" the white spots on the
fawns, as if causing those white spots to catch on fire. "Kindling a fire" means
starting a small fire by rubbing sticks together or using a small flame (like a lighter)
to ignite the "kindling," which are small branches. Eventually, the small flames you've
kindled grow into a larger fire.
Again, it's difficult to
guess the purpose of this sentence without knowing what information comes before and
after. However, the language does personify the sun as weak, and the fact that the sun
breaks weakly through the clouds emphasizes that the sun is struggling to shine on the
young deer below, to bring out their fire-like
beauty.
Furthermore, the sun's weakness parallel's the fact
that the fawns are young and, we can assume, relatively weak. So changing "broke weakly"
to "burst" would destroy that similarity, and give the sentence a much more triumphant
tone, rather than the tone of understated struggle that's currently present. Again,
whether that change would strengthen or weaken the sentence depends on the context (what
comes before and after).
Finally, if "broke weakly" were
changed to "burst", the sun's flame would clearly be a very big, powerful flame, rather
than the weak but fighting flame that is currently implied. Such a change would alter
the dynamics of the images here, and alter the tone, though for better or worse is for
you to decide. Consider which of the two versions is more fitting for the larger piece
in question--which is more in keeping with the emotions, themes, and imagery of the rest
of the paragraph, and of the work as a whole?
No comments:
Post a Comment