More reading!! What a joy! I hope I start off every blog post from now on that way.
After reading all of this great information on tone and style and irony (and so on and so forth), I highlighted (not literally!) a few things that really caught my eye in the text. During our discussion last Friday, we talked about authors who will insert their own opinion or talk to the reader through narration, and then the book talked about it! (Specifically Victorian writers who would interrupt the story) They had some really great examples from a few books, but my favorite was from Anthony Trollope in Barchester Towers (1857), wherein he says, "But let not the gentle-hearted reader be under no apprehension whatsoever. It is not destined that Eleanor shall marry Mr. Slope or Bertie Stanhope." I just found this really funny, yet really sad. He's assuming his readers gentle-hearted, or at least poking fun at them, and then saying that fate doesn't even want these two together, so don't worry about it.
Next, tone conveys an attitude. I love noticing the tone of a story. I mean, of course it's hard not to, but it's always kind of amusing when you find it. Style also works closely with tone and is the way that you write that it is recognizably yours. One example is Ernest Hemingway. He has very clipped, void of fluff sentences. But, you still learn a lot from them. They also don't usually say the emotion that the character is feeling, but instead show the surroundings of the place and their mood and you are meant to understand the feeling as you have probably experienced it. I think that's a really cool style of writing that not many people could replicate.
We've also got diction, which is the way that you have characters speak. Irony, which we talked about extensively last year (and the year before) and is used extensively in text. We also know all about theme and have talked about it for-ever. But, I did find the point that there can be multiple themes per story interesting. Also, the statement on page 182 about trying to find a theme that says, "Attempted with loving care, such statements may bring into focus our scattered impressions of a rewarding story, may help to clarify and hold fast whatever wisdom the storyteller has offered us." I found that a really neat sentiment.
Lastly I read about symbols. A symbol is an object that suggests more than its literal meaning. This, compared to allegory, which is "a story in which persons, places, and things form a system of clearly labeled equivalents. (page 206)" I had heard the definition of allegory before, but I guess I had forgotten because I wrote this down as something to remember for the future. Additionally, I liked when they talked about the idea of "symbolic characters" and told about the "room two women who knit black wool--like the classical Fates." I love it when characters are hinted to be something else, or represent something, and are minor. Major characters I don't appreciate as much, but when they're minor you can look and understand and then maybe keep checking up on them through the story, but it's not about them. Basically, symbolism in stories is really important and in most stories you can find it.
--
All right, let's talk about Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway and I kind of have a love hate relationship. I really like and admire a lot of his writing (A Moveable Feast, A Farewell to Arms, and Big Two-Hearted River), but some other stuff he writes I find uninteresting and bland (The Sun Also Rises). Hemingway's style is very clipped and direct, leaving out any extraneous details. As I mentioned above, he writes what gives the emotion instead of the emotion the character is feeling and you must figure it out yourself. This can be good when you want to really experience the writing, but at other times it can be repetitive and annoying because as he goes his writing can get confusing. Hemingway's direct and unemotional style contributes to this story, "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," because the waiters are pretty much unemotionally discussing this deaf guy who's drinking brandy at their cafe. The styles contributes to the overall theme because it's about loneliness and having a place and fearing that you are, indeed, meaningless. So when they talk so unemotionally and without care they kind of contribute to the theme that you are meaningless. And, the only emotion shown is when they talk about the cafe and how everybody needs a place like that. I think that's more Hemingway's own view than the waiters'.
--
Elements of symbolism in "The Chrysanthemums"! Hurray!!!!!!
Okay, now that we got that pent up excitement out the way for such an enthralling event as this, let's get down to business (to defeat the Huns).
The number one element of symbolism in this story is the patch of flower she tends to at the beginning. They represent her as a woman, or rather, her femininity. At first, she's tending to the flowers really carefully and making sure everything is perfect with them, and then her husband comes over and is like, "hey, wow, great flowers there bud. You should grow me some apples in the orchard because YOU'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH." But he doesn't really think that, that's just what she thinks he thinks. Meaning, Elisa is kind of disappointed with her husband. He seems to only care about his stupid field and his stupid three-year-old steers, and not her. He's kind of lost his passion for their marriage and she's vaguely disappointed by the whole thing.
Then, the guy in the cart that comes along to sell his wares or whatever represents a kind of spark in her personality. Someone is admiring her, and while it isn't technically her, THAT'S HER FEMININITY RIGHT THERE and he said it looked like "a quick puff of colored smoke," like, wow!! That'd make any woman blush. Especially one who gardens all day and her husband ignores. And then they have a weird moment with some really pretty dialogue:
"When the night is dark--why, the stars are sharp-pointed, and there's quiet...sharp and--lovely."
So that's fun. And then she tries to tell him that women can do the stuff that men do to (prove herself).
Oh and also: "That's a bright direction. There's a glowing there." It's just pretty. I needed to comment.
And, then, lastly, she gets dressed all nice, ready for the awesome night out, and then Henry comes home, is awkward as ever, and tells her she could break a calf over his knee or something. Smooth, Henry. That ruins all the work Elisa put in and makes her feel like she has nothing left, and it's not going to get any better.
Oh, and the fight represents what she wants to be like, while the wine represents the thing that she's going to stick with because it's "her only option."
--
In both stories, I didn't really know if POV was really that important. We have the two waiters commenting on the deaf guy and loneliness. And then we have the wife and the husband and the caravan guy. I don't really think that POV was the most important thing in these stories, but I suppose it would've been a little different in each if it had been told from, say, the deaf man or the husband's POV.
Setting was very important in Hemingway's story. It was about said cafe. I guess there is a possibility that it could be set somewhere else, but he makes the point specifically about a "clean, well-lighted place" and describes it as this cafe. Setting in Steinbeck's was also important because of the hard, worn people and the landscape and the gardening. It couldn't have been set in a city. Time period was also important for this one.
Another thing that was really important in each was character motivation. In Hemingway's, we didn't really know the motivation and had to figure it out (for the waiter). In Steinbeck's, we were given very distinct clues about the motivation and it was a lot easier to figure out (for Elisa).
Finally, for plot, neither were very cut and dry, moral-is-right-where-you-can-see-it. Hemingway works are notoriously hard to find the theme/message unless you're looking really hard, and Steinbeck gives you clues but you must figure it out yourself. It's not so...easy, to find. So, neither stories are very direct with their messages. Does this confirm our point about modern stories not being direct with their messages? Do we have well-built up characters (not so much in Hemingway's, other than the waiter; and yes, for Steinbeck), or are they skin and bones?
Thank you and good morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment