Another day, another reading assignment.
In this assignment, I reviewed Point of View! Basically, you have a bunch of different types of narration that can be divided into two subcategories of "Narration from a Nonparticipant" and "Narration from a Participant." From there, you can go more in depth, but the main point is that you're either using third or first person, respectively.
Whether your narrator is a participant or not, they are probably one of three types: innocent, naive, or unreliable. This means that you may not be able to trust your narrator because 1) they don't understand the implications of the story, 2) they have certain beliefs thrust upon them at birth that they have not matured past, or 3) they are "deceptive, self-deceptive, deluded, or deranged." This information is presented as "bad" for the reader, but really I think that the deceptive narrator or the innocent narrator adds a whole new level of interest to the story. With the innocent narrator, you have to think past their actions and come up with why they would do the things they do. With a deceptive narrator, you do almost the same, but at the end you may be surprised to figure out that the narrator has not been entirely truthful. We, as readers, are conditioned to read and accept most things in fiction as truth (for the fictitious world), but when we are presented with a deceptive or innocent narrator it makes the reading experience so much better.
I also agreed with the text saying that third person narration is more trustworthy than first person, as first person presents more of a bias. Although, third person could potentially be deceiving. In Harry Potter, the narration is in third person limited, so Harry is the main focus. Every thought or emotion he has is displayed to us, but so are his perceptions. For example, Harry constantly thinks Snape is wishing him trouble (and at times he is), but a lot of the time he isn't, it's just how Harry perceives it.
--
Moving on to character, this was a review also. By now we should know the difference between "flat, round, static, and dynamic" characters and all about the "antihero." However, I did like the paragraph on naming characters, especially the quote, "A character, first of all, is the noise of his name." Naming of characters is so important. If you name a character "John Smith," he will immediately be considered ordinary; however, a character like "Freda Zeggs" would be exotic and unusual. I also liked hearing about how Charles Dickens named his characters and wondered if it was still possible to name so obviously in the literary world today.
The paragraph on motivation was interesting too. I think about character motivation a lot because of the RP group that I'm in. When you write a character for an RP, you usually have a few set values that you try to go off (at first). As you continue to write and develop your character, you can add in little nuisances ("multiple facets" of the character) that make your character unique and not "stock." I find this idea kind of hard to grasp. Not in the sense that I don't understand how motivation works or any that, but kind of the fact that human nature is really confusing and how can you even fathom shoving that into one character? I have realized as I've kept writing for my RP that characters are so much more complicated than the book definition ("an imagined person who inhabits a story") makes them out to be. If you write them well, they are hardly "an imagined person" when you're done with them. You can practically reach out and touch them because of their realness. It kind of reminds me of the saying "I have lived a thousand lives through books." If you write a character well enough, it's almost like the reader can mix up the character's memories with their own. I don't know if you've ever experienced that, but I frequently find myself trying to remember if something had actually happened or if I read it once.
--
In "A Rose for Emily," the story is told in first person through a minor character. I believe it's told through a member of the town, but it's a little bit odd because this member of the town knows just about everything. However, this could be more of a retelling after hearing a bunch of things from other members of the town. Kind of like an older person telling gossip to a younger person, as we do see a lot of gossips in the town. The effect of this kind of narration is weird. If we would've seen from Emily's eyes, perhaps we would've been less creeped out, but probably not. By not seeing from Emily's eyes, we gain no perspective or motivation for why she is doing all the creepy stuff she's doing and WHY HER HOUSE STINKS I MEAN COME ON! Looking in as the casual observer, we only see certain seemingly weird things Emily does. Exhibit A, buying arsenic "to kill rats." Perhaps the police should have maybe, just maybe paid a visit to her lovely home. Especially after that nice man who was her lover disappeared. Overall, the narration leaves the reader guessing why Emily is doing all this weird stuff and then at the end super creeped out because we don't know her motivation for being a scary, old necrophiliac.
In "The Storm," the story is told in third person omniscient, meaning an all-knowing narrator. The effect of this kind of narration is a disconnected kind of air. If it would've been told from one of the character's POV, we 1) wouldn't have seen everything that happened and 2) would have been much more emotional about the situation. Everyone just seemed very calm and composed, and that had the effect of making the actions in the story seem acceptable to the casual reader. The message you get from it with the disconnect is something along the lines of "BE FREE YOU SEXY PEOPLE, NO ONE CARES--especially not your wife," but we would've gotten distinctly different messages if it would've been told from each one of the characters. In fact, we may not have gotten a message at all. "The Storm" was by far my favorite of the two. I really dislike creepy stories or stories that make me uncomfortable. "The Storm" was more of a, "I'm not sure I agree with you, but at least your story isn't the creepiest thing in the world."
--
Foreshadowing is used a lot in "A Rose for Emily." In the first sentence, even, foreshadowing is used. We learn immediately that Emily is dead, which is foreshadowing that at the end we'll find out something about her death. In the next paragraph we learn a bunch of seemingly mundane things about her "stubborn and coquettish" house that should be seen as a metaphor for Emily herself. This is foreshadowing for the character to come, as we only know Emily's name so far. When they go on to mention the thing about her not having taxes, you know that's gonna be a big point. Why else would the mention something so boring? Then they go on to visit her and that is foreshadowing for the fact that they will never visit again based on her behavior. Lastly, we see foreshadowing in the fact that Emily has cut all her hair off after "being sick" and looked like a young girl again. This should warn us that something is wrong with Emily and that "looking like a young girl again" suggests some sort of innocence or lack of regard for morals--meaning mental illness (not to suggest that being mentally ill is a "lack of regard for morals"). The narrator is telling the story from memory, probably, so almost everything is either foreshadowing or "We didn't say this then, only this."
--
Setting is literally the most important thing in both stories. Going to the more obvious of the two first, in "The Storm" the setting is important because it allows the mother to commit her infidelity. It also traps the father and son in the market. Additionally, it brings the lover in from the rain. If the storm hadn't happened, the father and son wouldn't have been trapped and the wife wouldn't have had the time to do her thing, along with the fact that the lover wouldn't have come in from the rain.
In "A Rose for Emily," setting is equally important, yet less obvious. The setting needed to be in a closed off, antiquated town in the middle of nowhere for this to work. If it was in a large city in modern times, no one would've known or cared. But, being that it's in the middle of a hot summer in an isolated town that knows everybody's business and has nothing better to do than gossip, we get to hear the telling of Emily's life from the view of the casual gossip. If the gossips didn't care about her, we never would have known about the fact that a new man was in her life or that she bought arsenic at the store. We needed the small town atmosphere or else we wouldn't have the story. We also probably wouldn't have the wonderful comparison of stubborn house to stubborn woman.
No comments:
Post a Comment