Brave New World Discussion Part 3

More discussions!

Let's get right down to the nitty gritty.

Both John and Linda are thrown into different worlds from what they are used to, and they are forced to adapt. However, they both go about it in different ways.

John is amazed, at first, with this great new place he can live. After a time, however, he realizes that everything is kind of fake and he doesn't like it nearly as much. He also doesn't understand a lot of the qualities/morals people have, and sometimes he tries to go against them. An example of this would be when he throws the soma out the window at the Place Where People Go to Die (Park Lane Hospital for the Dying). John also refuses all sexual advances and sticks to his morals. He doesn't realize why people are afraid/embarrassed of some of the things that he says. Whenever he meets someone that he thinks relates to him, he goes all out and completely trusts them. But a little while after, they usually turn out to only have half formed ideas. An example of this would be with Helmholtz when John is reciting Shakespeare to him and he laughs.

Linda adapts differently. One, she really, really doesn't like this new place with all its dirts and germs. At first she tries to keep everything nice and neat and in order, but she really just wants to go back to where she can take a shower and be pampered. At the end she doesn't care as much about her appearance because she realized it doesn't matter in this society. She also tries to find replacements for things in her society--alcohol for soma. But, she makes the grievous mistake of thinking that this society has the same morals as hers, and she sleeps with all the men. And throw in all this with the fact that she's pregnant, something unheard of in her society, would definitely contribute to a feeling of culture shock.

Miranda. Not a Firefly (or Serenity, if you're gonna be technical) reference, but indeed, a Shakespeare one.

The first time that John says the line, "O brave new world," is on page 139. He's talking about how exciting it will be to go to this new place with this new people and how exciting everything will be. He's also talking about how exciting his time with Lenina could be. He kind of has a crush, but not in the same way that these people get a "crush." Because they don't crushes. They get what they want.

He again says the line on page 160 after seeing the hatchery. He's kind of horrified with the situation and the text after his quote says "by some malice of his memory" and then he goes and throws up. He's not comfortable with this practices, and the "O brave new world" is used in a horrified tone.

Then, curiously, again on page 209, talking about the delta "twins."

The last time we hear John utter those famous words is on page 210. He is in the Place Where People Go to Die (Park Lane Hospital for the Dying) and he was just going to throw all those soma tablets out the window. He is in a bad state after just seeing Linda die and absolutely no one caring about it. He's realizing that this world isn't all its cracked up to be and that maybe he shouldn't have classified it as such in the beginning.

Differences in Male Characters:

• John: John is different from everyone else, and rightly so. He is not accepted into either world (brave new or savage). He recites Shakespeare in most emotional instances. He has very strong morals. He wants to prove himself. He feels that he needs to be punished for a lot of things. He just generally doesn't like these new people and kind of wants to go back home.
• Bernard: Bernard brings back "the Savage" and finds himself with fame and recognition. He then believes he can do whatever he wants. He doesn't realize that the people only like him for John and this new "interesting" thing. Bernard is kind of selfish and false. He never really had any good ideas, he just wanted to be liked.
• Helmholtz: Helmholtz, in these chapters, is pretty distant. Whenever Bernard asks him questions, he just sort of shies away and doesn't answer/ignores him. This could just be in reaction to Bernard's selfishness/abandoning of all previous things in favor of fame. However, at the end, Helmholtz seems to be the only "true" character, in that he is finally given a chance to express himself away from society. The island "punishment" is more of a reward for him. 

John and Lenina's weird psuedo-romance

At first, John is drawn to Lenina because she is pretty and innocent and she doesn't immediately reject him. This is good because John has never experienced anything close to acceptance before...ever. Which is sad. However, John wants to woo Lenina and make her fall in love with him and then be married. He even asks Bernard on page 139 if Bernard and Lenina are married because he wants to be sure he's being absolutely correct with her. I find this really endearing, but then his intentions are just sort of thrown by the wayside by Lenina.
Lenina doesn't understand the concept of "love" or "marriage" or even "courtship," and therefore, she is frustrated when John won't just have sex with her. She likes him, but she doesn't really know what to do with him not wanting to have sex right away. I think Lenina shows desire, but she doesn't show true emotional connection because when John refuses she just sort of walks away. BUT later, she does go to the lighthouse to see him, but that could be all a fame thing. I just think she's really too innocent for any kind of true emotion. None of them really have any true emotions, other than desire.

John vs. Mond: Differing Opinions

1. arts/literature: I think both of them have the same opinion on this. They both like the arts/literature, but Mond realizes he can't give them to everyone. John thinks that he should, but Mond thinks they're old and will give them ideas. John is materialistic and Mond is ascetic. 
2. science: Mond likes some science, but not all. He doesn't want people understanding things or getting ideas. He is more materialistic in this view because he thinks that Bokanovsky Groups are the foundation upon which everything else is built (222). John doesn't understand the idea because he figures you should keep improving and moving and all that. He is more ascetic. 
3. religion: John is more materialistic in this view. He thinks that God doesn't change so why should people not read it? Mond is more ascetic in this view because it's another one of those new vs. old things. The people change--history is bad.
4. emotional/personal relationships: If we look at literally any relationships in the book either involving citizens of the brave new or John, we find that John is wayyyy different. He is more ascetic because has morals to uphold and wants to honor the opposite in the relationship. In the brave new, it's more materialistic because it's just going off of the fact that everybody wants to, so why not? 

The end. 

Brave New World Discussion Part 2

A few examples of people being reduced to near-inhuman states would be:

• There's a "hatchery" in Chapter 10. That's where humans are "hatched." This is so different from how we kind of respect childbirth and love babies now. In this dystopian world, childbirth and mothers and fathers are snickered at and a cause for embarrassment in conversation. Just to go a little further, it's kind of like a major show of immaturity that they're all so comfortable with sex but so uncomfortable with the idea of being mothers and fathers and even the barest mention of childbirth. So anyway, humans are compared to animals who come out of eggs when born and are hatched instead of born. 
• I'm not exactly sure what chapter, but when, near the end, John is at the place where people go to die and he dumps all the soma out the window, the workers that come in just sort of unethically put everyone down with really strong doses of soma and then, "with the cautious tenderness of one who strokes a notoriously vicious animal, he patted the Savage's arm (211)," they literally describe John just like that. And then they just sort of take him down. Like an animal. 
• When Lenina goes to seduce John or whatevs, he is represented as an animal freaking out and Lenina won't let him in to give her his clothes and all that. 

There's a lot of animal imagery. Just in general, the way that any given person is treated at any given time is usually terrible. Everyone is treated as a child or an animal.

Next you asked about Ford. Like I said, I really did not understand his part in this at all. But, I took the initiative and looked it up and I understand it now. Ford is representative of technology and moving forward. This makes sense because of the time period it was written in and the fact that this society is entirely based on consumerism. They replace any use of religion with Ford.

Let's compare! You asked if I could please compare the "savage" civilization and our current civilization, and then say whether or not it was really as bad as it was made out to be.
They have a lot of mentions of God and other deities in the savage society. In our own cultures, we have a lot of mentions of religions because a lot of people believe in religions. They also drink a lot. We drink a lot. Another thing would be that they are mostly monogamous. In this society, Linda doesn't fit in because she sleeps with ALL the guys and the ladies don't like that much. So they go and beat her up. They also have rights of passage and exclusion and little groups of people and FAMILIES and DEATH and OLD people. It's very similar to our own, but I think it's a little less structured. This could be because it's not allowed to grow, though.

I think it's not really that bad, based on every characters reaction. But it would be pretty horrible for them, I mean, look at Linda! I don't know which is preferable. If you were born and raised and part of the culture of the savage society, I think it would be better. However, you would have a lot of hardships. I think they both have their pros and cons. But the high-tech society is really scary and there's no such thing as free will and even though it's clean it's just creepy.

Next up: Bernard and Lenina. I think Bernard goes after Lenina specifically because she has some crazy ideas like wanting to stay with one person for a longer time than a few dates. She also mentions about no one else wanting to say yes to Bernard because he was a little odd, so maybe Bernard is just kind of clinging to the one person that will pay attention to/not make fun of him. But I also think Bernard is having all these strange ideas and he hasn't ever been able to share them and he thinks maybe he can finally do so with Lenina because she's shown some strange habits/ideas too.

Back to Ford. So again. Still not really sure what the heck is up with Ford. He was just really confusing to me and every time they mentioned him  I didn't really understand what was happening. But again, as I looked up before, I think maybe he just represents technology, which you can refer back to about how this represents the technological society and abandonment of religion.

Confusion: I just thought some of the ways that he phrased things were really strange. Like he would talk for hours on things like the hatcheries and then just barely pass by things like what the women used for contraception or what the activities were that they played. I don't know if this was kind of intentionally saying that they were so unimportant they could hardly remember them, or what? Also, they talk about the Bokanovsky twins and like WOW that could've been super interesting to actually see and talk about how they managed to do this, but then again, I guess no one in the society really knows WHY they're doing the things they're doing or HOW just how to do the things. I guess it makes sense why it's a little confusing, as it kind represents the general ignorance of society, but then again, I wish some things would've been cleared up a little. Ford was probably the point of most confusion for me because they always mention him in passing and I didn't understand if he was real or a mystical thing or what in the world was happening.

More Questions!!!!

1. Who is the main character, in your opinion, and why?

I think that the main character is probably John. At first you think it might be Bernard or Lenina, but then once you happen upon the chapters about John and we learn soooo much background information on him it becomes kind of clear that he's probably meant to be the main character. The book also ends with him so that could be an identifier that he is supposed to be important. I just don't really see any of the other characters going through so much or really learning anything/sticking to their morals. Bernard becomes corrupt and Lenina is portrayed as typical lady for most of the book. How annoying.
   
     2.What in the world is up with that weird formatting in chapter three and what do you make of it?

I think it was just kind of about how no one entirely knows everything, so everyone has to interject something in. Also, no one can stay focused enough on one subject to continue talking at length. Also, they're talking about Lenina having her strange ideas and "homes" and "families" a lot of this chapter which is a really uncomfortable subject for everyone in this society so of course you'd shy away from it and want to talk about something else for a bit if you were actually a person of this society writing this book.  

Brave New World Discussion

Back to the old blogging routine.

*After reading the packets about detail and diction, I found that the assignment wasn’t still posted on schoology (that I could see), so I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to write about. But! I think it was something about giving examples of detail and diction in Brave New World, so that’s what I’m going to write about.

From what I gathered in the detail packet, detail is when you write something and are just giving a description. There is no emotional information included, just facts. I think a good example of this in Brave New World would be when they describe without any emotion the process of how they make people and then brainwash them. No one really seems to have any emotion most of the book, so I think a lot of this book could qualify as detail. I also believe that an example of an author who uses this form of writing constantly would be Ernest Hemingway.

Diction would be when you do have an emotional connotation with what you’re saying. An example of this in the book would be, just in general, the character John. Most everything he says is filled with emotion. Another example would be when the Director gets emotional about him and Linda. Or one more would be when Bernard has his moment of questioning with Lenina. This book does have emotional text, but not as much as the factual aspect. I think this is okay though because the book is about how no one thinks or has real emotions. So it all works.*

On to examples of how Brave New World exemplifies a Dystopian society perfectly.

1. Propaganda is used to control the citizens of the society

As Bernard mentions about a thousand and six times, every single night from (birth) and as children, the citizens of the society are subjected to subliminal messages each night that condition them to act differently. They also learn catchy little phrases that they can repeat on command, even when completely unnecessary, such as when Linda is living on the reservation with the "savages."

      2. Information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted.

There is a chapter, or at least a section, that begins with Mustapha Mond, world controller, looking over a report from a scientist and rejecting it—even going so far as to underline multiple times the rejection—because he thought that it would let people think. He, and other world controllers, also send people who think freely to little islands outside of society because if they think it could bring everything down. They also restrict the citizens time so much that even if they wanted to think, they would be exhausted. Additionally, they give them little pills called soma so that any time any thoughts or even bad feelings come up they can just take a “holiday.” Even going farther than that, they’ve been brainwashed since birth (not even birth) so free thinking is pretty much out of the question. They also have pretty much no job choices and a set caste system they have no way of getting out, and they don’t want to get out of it. 

3. A figurehead or concept is worshiped by society. 

The people of this "brave new world" worship a man called "Ford" almost obsessively. And he just sort of speaks out of the ceiling at strange times. And on a recording too. 

4. Citizens are perceived to be under constant surveillance.

Bernard and Lenina's boss mentions something about how he has noticed that Bernard's behavior reports have been unusual outside of work and even during work. Obviously they are spied on/have surveillance if Bernard's boss has information on him outside of work.

5. Citizens have a fear of the outside world. 

Citizens don't so much have a fear as they just don't see the use of it. When Bernard suggests they go to Malpais, Lenina thinks it's a stupid idea and doesn't want to have to live in the muck and all that. The only character that seems, or at least seemed at one point, genuinely afraid of the outside world is Linda. She didn't exactly adjust well to being thrown into the world of savages. 

6. Citizens live in a dehumanized state.

The citizens even realize this several times and don't care. They refer to themselves as children and don't really care that they are. Everyone there is kind of child, and they don't really do any adult activities. "It is their duty to be infantile (pg. 98)." They also aren't parents, don't have children, and don't have spouses. They have no connections, but they are supposed to be a "unit" or a "whole." No one person matters, so I guess none of them matter?

7. The natural world is banished and distrusted.

The citizens our the "brave new world" live in a high tech society where they got rid of all the trees and the grass and the bugs and anything that could potentially hurt anyone. It's all a padded room. The citizens distrust the "savages" and call them that because of it. They don't think that living in squalor with, god forbid, families and religion and drama could ever work. 

8. Citizens conform to uniform expectations. 

Everyone is conditioned to believe that the caste systems they are placed in are just and right. They are also taught as small children that they and their death don't matter. Individuals don't matter. It's society as a whole that matters. They also say a few times, "what do a few murders matter? As long as society is kept intact." 

9. The society is an illusion of a perfect world. 

This should be evident from all the previous information, but to further drill in the point, at the end after John, the "normal" human, experiences the world and feels so much guilt for what all is happening, he kills himself. 

Next. First of all, Huxley's dad was a biologist, and Huxley also wanted to be a biologist, but he had a major vision problem and instead turned to writing. This explains his fascination with genetics (the making of humans in labs) and biology (making them better) in the novel. An industrial revolution was going on right as the new century began. This meant new inventions and improvements and new science to ogle at. This contributed to a feeling that everything was moving too fast. An example of new inventions in the novel would be how all everything had to be new, how a model of consumerism was promoted, and how all sports had to involve probably a hundred pieces just to work.
Also in teen years of the 1900s, there was a war happening. That was World War I. That means a lot of unrest and people were scared. An example of this in the novel would be the "Nine Year's War." People got really scared during that time and so the government just "fixed" it. Then we had the '20s, which was all prosperity and lavishness until 1929. The '20s represent how the people in the novel live day to day.
Then the real stuff went down and the feeling of moving too fast was cemented. They had moved way too fast. The '30s were a time of cynicism. They were moving forward too quick, and now was the time to slow down and catch up with aspirations. An example of this would be the people who think too much. One example would be John, and other examples would be the people who were taken to the islands.
The 1930s was when Brave New World was published. I think it was published then to show what could have happened, and what still could if people continued the way they had been.

Last. I found a lot of things about this book interesting/important.

1. The scene with Bernard and Lenina in the helicopter thing near the beginning of the book (page 92) was really interesting. At first Bernard is trying really hard to get her to just think ("But it's lovely. And I don't want to look." Daisy Buchanan moment much?) and feel ("I want to feel something strongly."), and then he just kind of gives up and starts laughing. I think this is really interesting because he's trying to break free, but then Lenina just continually resists and finally he just gives up. I think this is probably pretty representative about how most people feel in this society. Maybe at first they tried to get out of it, but then there was just so much to keep them there. He also continues on page 94 about how "it suddenly struck me the other day that it might be possible to be an adult all the time." And then Lenina is all like, "No, no. I don't understand. We had fun, you're dumb. Stop thinking." Bernard, again, is a real pushover, and stops the discussion. 
2. Just a small thing: on page 95, when it talks about Mustapha Mond intial-ing a permit, I thought the way he signed was really interesting. "He pencilled his initials--two small pale letters abject at the feet of Mustapha Mond--and was about to return..." It's interesting that his signature is small and pale. It kind of represents him as more of a figurehead, with no actual power, against "Ford." 
3. OH MY GOD when the Director was reminiscing, I repeat, reminiscing, about Linda and his trip to Malpais. Like, wow. You don't just think. I bracketed that entire part.
4. And then Mustapha Mond talking at the end to all John, Helmholtz (?), and Bernard. He knows enough, but he still doesn't really get it. I mean, he's trying to protect the world, but he's kind of going about it the wrong way.

There was a lot more stuff that was super interesting, but I just can't even think of any.

Confusing stuff:

1. Ford. 'Nuff said.
2. I didn't like how he didn't explain a lot of things. I mean, I realize all the characters know everything about everything, but some things weren't explained that well and I was confused on what they meant. Also, even though I guess it doesn't really relate to the story, I would have loved an explanation of what all the different activities they did were. (i.e., the golf and the helicopters and whatnot)
3. What the whole basis of government is? Like, who is running this whole thing? Or is no one running it at all and that's part of the problem? We just have the world controllers and a dead guy* controlling the place? *read: dead guy=Ford to the 21st century mind of Erika

I probably also have a lot more questions, but again, nothing I can think of at the moment.

Overall, the book had some really interesting ideas and I think it's a classic for a reason.

Let's Talk About Subdued Themes

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.

POV and Creepy Stories Discussion

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.

Short Fiction and Plot

After being asked to read around twenty pages of a textbook that I had never laid eyes on before and promised itself to be boring and stale, I found myself dreading the reading experience. However, upon actually getting into the physicality of the reading, the textbook was not as dull as I expected. I wanted to read more, unlike the usual where I would get tired of it halfway through a paragraph. The reason, I realized, was because it was actually engaging and even comical at times instead of dry and tedious prose that the writer expects the reader to fall asleep to. I wanted to comment on that immediately because it feels like something that should be noted in a course where we explicitly talk about good and bad styles of writing. 

Upon reading more into the textbook, I did agree with the point that although tales and fables had little decoration, they were still "good reads." This sets forth the idea that even if you only have the bare bones of a story, you still have a story--possibly a good one. When reading short fiction, you must look past the non-decoration and see that it doesn't help the story, but merely distracts the reader. If a shop boy is not described to his full extent and is left instead a "stick figure" of a character, we can look past it to instead see the message of the piece. 

I also learned that the word "tale" is used to tell short stories in bare detail, and that this was because most story tellers told their stories and couldn't elaborate fully on every detail in them. This was particularly interesting to me because I find the tradition of oral history really captivating. It's so enthralling that for years and years we didn't write down stories but merely told them. I wonder how this has influenced story telling and writing in the future? Were stories originally very descriptive but then passed down so many times that they reached their bones before finally being written? Are we basing entire histories off of pieces of work that may or may not be the bones of a once meaty story? These questions are really intriguing to me and I wonder what their answers would be. 

---

I reached "Godfather Death" and "A&P" with some trepidation, but mostly it was excitement because all of the previous stories were really interesting. I was also able to compare them to a television show I watch obsessively and I thought that made the whole thing all the more engaging. 

In "A&P," I thought that the protagonist was Sammy because he seemed to be who was telling the story and his emotions were focused on rather than anyone else's. The antagonist would be Sammy's boss, Lengel, who told the girls to leave the grocery store. I picked Lengel because he forced Sammy to make a choice about whether or not he was going to stay and also made the girls promise not to dress that way again.  

The external conflict presented was Lengel forcing the girls to not come back to the store unless they were dressed decently. This is the external conflict because it is physically happening and is some outside force against the characters. The internal conflict was when Sammy had to choose whether or not to quit. This is because it happened inside of our protagonist and caused a conflict. This conflict was preceded by the story's climax: Lengel coming out of his office and questioning the girls, making Sammy think about what he had to do himself. The elements that foreshadowed this event were when the sentence, "Now here comes the sad part of the story, at least my family thinks it's sad but I don't think it's sad myself," came up. This said that something bad was going to happen but we weren't exactly sure what.

I don't believe Sammy to be any less of a hero for wanting the girls to notice him. If there were no girls in the first place, Sammy probably wouldn't have quit. The girls were a necessary part of the equation (kind of like a constant) and if Sammy needed them to notice him (an extra that we can place off to the side) to carry on with his quitting (the dependent variable), then so be it. 

The character Sammy is portrayed more fully through the use of comedy and real-life thoughts and dialogue. Through this we see some of his emotions and thoughts. With the doctor in "Godfather Death," we only saw the bare surface of a man. However, for that story, this was completely okay. It didn't detract from the overall message at all. With "A&P," if we'd known none of the thoughts or emotions of the character it would have seemed dull and without a message. This displays that different types of short stories must have different approaches taken to get across the right message. 

I don't think that supermarket setting of the story is entirely vital. This story could be in a lot of different places and still have the same effect. The only thing that would possibly have to be adjusted with a change of setting would be Lengel's reason for making the girls leave, and in turn, why Sammy would quit or, in a change of setting, do some other similar thing. Whether or not it is in a supermarket, you'll still get the moral/message. 

The differences in story-telling from the older fiction to "A&P" were very small. The moral/message was in each, but it was harder to find in the newer works. In the older fiction, the story was bare and decoration-less with stick figure characters who only served the purpose of pawn. While in the newer fiction, characters were better described but only because it helped the story move forward. As previously stated, if in "A&P" Sammy had been a stick figure character, the message/moral would not have come across clearly. 

In modern literature, we have writers who carry on the tradition of bare bones writing (Ernest Hemingway) and we have writers who begin anew with complexly described characters and many adjectives (Jane Austen). However, most literature nowadays is more "A&P" style and not just a skimpy story with a simple message. We now have convoluted story lines and messages that are caught up in different messages. While this may seem confusing, I think it just shows how far we as writers have evolved from our original "tales" and stick figure characters used as pawns in our lengthy game of chess. 

Blog #1: Elements of a Story

A story is described as "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment." I find this definition very bland and what someone who had no idea what a story was would say. A story to me is somewhere you can escape to that gives you some sort of adventure or conflict or life lesson. A story is ideas presented to you in a way that you don't notice they're there until the end. A good story changes your way of thinking and makes you want to be better. Writing and storytelling are two crafts that cannot be defined to the narrow "accounts told for entertainment." Stories are something entirely different. They are stars inside of an author's brain that spill onto the paper and become constellations and galaxies that you, the reader, have the pleasure of naming and enjoying. 

The elements of a story that make it "good" are things like symbolism, imagery, character development, world building, story arcs, plot twists, and backstories. Symbolism makes the story more than just words on the page. It takes what could have just been the color yellow in The Great Gatsby and turns it into a clue of corruption. Imagery lets you see what is happening while you are reading. Character development helps you make believable characters so that people can either relate to them or at least enjoy them. World building lets you make organic worlds that are believable and interesting instead of one-dimensional and common. Story arcs and plot twists are essential to any story. Backstories are the highlight of my writing and reading life. They are my essence and my happiness. Backstories (going along with character development) make characters so much more intersting. You can either empathize with them, understand them better, or feel even worse about their situation. For example, learning the back story of Remus Lupin in Harry Potter was one of the saddest events of my recent life. 

The elements of a story that make it "bad" are just the opposite of all of these items. If you have one-dimensional characters in a bland world where your characters do nothing but walk around and have conversations rife with nothing but everyday niceties: you do not have a story. You have a journal, and a fictional one at that. 

When looking over our "syllabus" for this class (that we made last year), I found myself getting a sick feeling in my stomach. What had I gotten myself into? There were so many books and essays and responses that I couldn't quite wrap my head around doing this and also doing another English class. I'm really worried about this, but I hope I can manage it all. 

What I'm looking forward to in this particular unit is the chance to explore how to create such things as: world building, character development, symbolism, backstories, and so forth. I can competently create them now, but I'd like to be able to smoothly do so. I think reading and reflecting on passages will help with this a lot, but I'd also like to possibly listen to speakers on this (on YouTube or in books). I went to a literary conference last summer and I learned a lot more about writing than I thought was possible. While I'm not terrific, I find the more I learn the more I can look back on past work and see that it's getting better. I think working on the basics and the structure of writing will make it easier in the future.