To clarify with my heading for this blog, "The Road which we have walked on fastly and furiously", I chose to title it this way because we spent so little time on discussing on this text yet with the aid of Ms Morgan's thorough explication, I am content that this text is another option for my end of semester Individual Oral Presentation.
I found this novel more interesting than other two dystopian novels I read this semester. Unlike 1984, and The Handmaid's Tale, it is set in a "post"-apocalyptic world after the nuclear war in which the dad and the son are the only ones remaining, and has a relatively happy ending. Moreover, the way McCarthy's employs linguistic devices throughout the novel is fascinating:
In The Road, imageries are constantly used in depicting human's regression to a primeval state. Does it not contrast to the notions in We where humans dilapidate to a mechanical state. In other words, people in The Road turn to animals while people in We turn to machines. The fact that these two texts portray the two extremes of human's failing state, I can possibly incorporate this into my presentation.
Similar to We, The Road has a dark, cold, uncanny setting. Even if the responder is implied that there is sunset in the morning, the composer never happens to mention it, "with the first gray light he rose and left the boy sleeping and walked out to the road and squatted and studied the country to the south ... when it was light engouh to use the binoculars he glassed the valley below".
I also noticed how McCarthy does not stick to standard English when using abbreviations- he simply does not include apostrophes. More specifically, I discovered that they are only evident in negative words such as "hadnt", "didnt" and "couldnt". The reason may be that by not sticking to conventional English, he can insinuate or reflect how dyscivilised the society is and how the apocalyptic world has affected him.
Furthermore, McCarthy includes no chapters in the book. It is to suggest that there is no real structure in the society he lives in; there is no rest- the journey is endless.
The style of narration further reflects his state of mind. The use of free indirect style to provide is viewpoint is interesting. By somewhat combining the characteristics of third person with first person, it shows his complicated state of mind. Moreover, through the free indirect narration style, audience sees the stream of consciousness and notice his break of thoughts and actions.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Third Person Narration + First Person Narration ≈ Free Indirect Style?
I found FREE INDIRECT STYLE section the most interesting!!!!:
When I did short story writing in my previous school, my teacher went over different types of narrative style. He once mentioned "free indirect style". I remember him defining this particular narration by stating it is "like" a combination of third person and first person narrations; he then moved on to explain in gibberish. I can also recall one example that he provided me, "How the hell am I supposed to leave the house when my mobile rings? He glanced at women outside his unit and thought." (not exactly this but somewhere along this line) But I did not fully comprehend this concept of fiction writing.
After reading "How Fiction Works", I can now understand what this "free indirect style" really means and how it can be used. Wood mentions that writers are trapped with first and third person narrations because the success of composing a story from second person and first person plural (we) is "rare". Wood describes what we know as unreliable narrator (first person- I) is actually more reliable, and what what we know as omniscient narrator (third person- he/she/it) is not omniscient- omniscience in writing is impossible. By taking an omniscient approach, the perception of narrative then changes to certain character's way/s of thinking and speaking. Thus, it forms a writing style called "free indirect style" by sharing secret.
Let's take some examples from The Road. "He'd brought the boy's book but the boy was too tired for reading. Can we leave the lamp on till I'm asleep? Yes. Of course we can." Notice how this mostly conforms to a third person narration. Because using dialogues in third person is often inappropriate, indirect speech is replaced here instead; it seems to combine some of the elements from first person such as "I" and "we" and speech to this third person narration. Such style is also evident in Wood's "How Fiction Works" when he talks about free indirect style. "He looked at his wife. Yes, she was tiresomely unhappy again, almost sick. What the hell should he say?" In addition to just simple combination of two styles, I can also observe how the responder can perceive the story from character's perspective and the author's perspective. It is as if the narrative byes away from the composer and possessed by characters. Another feature that can be included in this style of narrative is stream of consciousness. Let me fix my phrase here; it resembles so much of stream of consciousness. Similar to Joseph Conrad's colonialist novel, Heart of Darkness, McCarthy's style of narrative is very similar because the audience can see his break in thoughts, state of mind, psychological status, and actions by gathering one's constant thought processes- "I'm scared. I know. But I'll just be a little ways and I'll be able to hear you so if you get scared you call me and I'll right away. I'm really scared. The sooner I go the sooner I'll be back and we'll have a fire and then you wont be scared anymore. Dont lie down. If you lie down you'll fall asleep and then if I call you you wont answer and I wont be able to find you ... The boy didnt answer. He was close to losing his temper with him and then he realised that he was shaking his head in the dark. Okay, he said. Okay.
Though I have found the article below AFTER I posted my first draft of this post, it is interesting how Coates has similar interpretations towards Wood's "How Fiction Works".
Free Indirect ‘Ducklings’
By STEVE COATES
One of the best parts of James Wood’s stimulating little book “How Fiction Works” is its lucid explanation of one of the most powerful tools of novel-writing, the limber and elastic narrative technique known as “free indirect style.” Wood suggests that this style — in which a third-person narrator and the characters he describes intertwine in magical ways — arises naturally from storytelling: “As soon as someone tells a story about a character,” he writes, “narrative seems to want to bend itself around that character, wants to merge with that character, to take on his or her way of thinking and speaking.”
Wood — not only a New Yorker staff writer but a visiting lecturer at Harvard — uses children’s literature as an entree into his discussion. Along the way, he renders up a sentence that I hope he will quote as needed in dismissal of the notion that he is out of touch with “the common reader”:
There is a technical connection, for instance, between “Make Way for Ducklings” and James’s novel “What Maisie Knew.”
Here’s the whole context:
In Robert McCloskey’s “Make Way for Ducklings,” Mr. and Mrs. Mallard are trying out the Boston Public Garden for their new home, when a swan boat (a boat made to look like a swan but actually powered by a pedal-pushing human pilot) passes them. Mr. Mallard has never seen anything like this before. McCloskey falls naturally into free indirect style: “Just as they were getting ready to start on their way, a strange enormous bird came by. It was pushing a boat full of people, and there was a man sitting on its back. ‘Good morning,’ quacked Mr. Mallard, being polite. The big bird was too proud to answer.” Instead of telling us that Mr. Mallard could make no sense of the swan boat, McCloskey places us in Mr. Mallard’s confusion; yet the confusion is obvious enough that a broad ironic gap opens between Mr. Mallard and the reader (or author). We are not confused in the same way as Mr. Mallard; but we are also being made to inhabit Mr. Mallard’s confusion.
What happens, though, when a more serious writer wants to open a very small gap between character and author? What happens when a novelist wants us to inhabit a character’s confusion, but will not “correct” that confusion, refuses to make clear what a state of nonconfusion would look like? We can walk in a straight line from McCloskey to Henry James. There is a technical connection, for instance, between “Make Way for Ducklings” and James’s novel “What Maisie Knew.” Free indirect style helps us to inhabit juvenile confusion, this time a young girl’s rather than a duck’s.
Coates, Steve. "Free Indirect 'Ducklings'" Online posting. 8 Aug. 2008. New York Times. 10 Dec, www.2010 papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/free-indirect-ducklings/.
When I did short story writing in my previous school, my teacher went over different types of narrative style. He once mentioned "free indirect style". I remember him defining this particular narration by stating it is "like" a combination of third person and first person narrations; he then moved on to explain in gibberish. I can also recall one example that he provided me, "How the hell am I supposed to leave the house when my mobile rings? He glanced at women outside his unit and thought." (not exactly this but somewhere along this line) But I did not fully comprehend this concept of fiction writing.
After reading "How Fiction Works", I can now understand what this "free indirect style" really means and how it can be used. Wood mentions that writers are trapped with first and third person narrations because the success of composing a story from second person and first person plural (we) is "rare". Wood describes what we know as unreliable narrator (first person- I) is actually more reliable, and what what we know as omniscient narrator (third person- he/she/it) is not omniscient- omniscience in writing is impossible. By taking an omniscient approach, the perception of narrative then changes to certain character's way/s of thinking and speaking. Thus, it forms a writing style called "free indirect style" by sharing secret.
Let's take some examples from The Road. "He'd brought the boy's book but the boy was too tired for reading. Can we leave the lamp on till I'm asleep? Yes. Of course we can." Notice how this mostly conforms to a third person narration. Because using dialogues in third person is often inappropriate, indirect speech is replaced here instead; it seems to combine some of the elements from first person such as "I" and "we" and speech to this third person narration. Such style is also evident in Wood's "How Fiction Works" when he talks about free indirect style. "He looked at his wife. Yes, she was tiresomely unhappy again, almost sick. What the hell should he say?" In addition to just simple combination of two styles, I can also observe how the responder can perceive the story from character's perspective and the author's perspective. It is as if the narrative byes away from the composer and possessed by characters. Another feature that can be included in this style of narrative is stream of consciousness. Let me fix my phrase here; it resembles so much of stream of consciousness. Similar to Joseph Conrad's colonialist novel, Heart of Darkness, McCarthy's style of narrative is very similar because the audience can see his break in thoughts, state of mind, psychological status, and actions by gathering one's constant thought processes- "I'm scared. I know. But I'll just be a little ways and I'll be able to hear you so if you get scared you call me and I'll right away. I'm really scared. The sooner I go the sooner I'll be back and we'll have a fire and then you wont be scared anymore. Dont lie down. If you lie down you'll fall asleep and then if I call you you wont answer and I wont be able to find you ... The boy didnt answer. He was close to losing his temper with him and then he realised that he was shaking his head in the dark. Okay, he said. Okay.
Though I have found the article below AFTER I posted my first draft of this post, it is interesting how Coates has similar interpretations towards Wood's "How Fiction Works".
Free Indirect ‘Ducklings’
By STEVE COATES
One of the best parts of James Wood’s stimulating little book “How Fiction Works” is its lucid explanation of one of the most powerful tools of novel-writing, the limber and elastic narrative technique known as “free indirect style.” Wood suggests that this style — in which a third-person narrator and the characters he describes intertwine in magical ways — arises naturally from storytelling: “As soon as someone tells a story about a character,” he writes, “narrative seems to want to bend itself around that character, wants to merge with that character, to take on his or her way of thinking and speaking.”
Wood — not only a New Yorker staff writer but a visiting lecturer at Harvard — uses children’s literature as an entree into his discussion. Along the way, he renders up a sentence that I hope he will quote as needed in dismissal of the notion that he is out of touch with “the common reader”:
There is a technical connection, for instance, between “Make Way for Ducklings” and James’s novel “What Maisie Knew.”
Here’s the whole context:
In Robert McCloskey’s “Make Way for Ducklings,” Mr. and Mrs. Mallard are trying out the Boston Public Garden for their new home, when a swan boat (a boat made to look like a swan but actually powered by a pedal-pushing human pilot) passes them. Mr. Mallard has never seen anything like this before. McCloskey falls naturally into free indirect style: “Just as they were getting ready to start on their way, a strange enormous bird came by. It was pushing a boat full of people, and there was a man sitting on its back. ‘Good morning,’ quacked Mr. Mallard, being polite. The big bird was too proud to answer.” Instead of telling us that Mr. Mallard could make no sense of the swan boat, McCloskey places us in Mr. Mallard’s confusion; yet the confusion is obvious enough that a broad ironic gap opens between Mr. Mallard and the reader (or author). We are not confused in the same way as Mr. Mallard; but we are also being made to inhabit Mr. Mallard’s confusion.
What happens, though, when a more serious writer wants to open a very small gap between character and author? What happens when a novelist wants us to inhabit a character’s confusion, but will not “correct” that confusion, refuses to make clear what a state of nonconfusion would look like? We can walk in a straight line from McCloskey to Henry James. There is a technical connection, for instance, between “Make Way for Ducklings” and James’s novel “What Maisie Knew.” Free indirect style helps us to inhabit juvenile confusion, this time a young girl’s rather than a duck’s.
Coates, Steve. "Free Indirect 'Ducklings'" Online posting. 8 Aug. 2008. New York Times. 10 Dec, www.2010 papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/free-indirect-ducklings/.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Informal Commentary on The Handmaid's Tale Excerpt
Draft Two:
Margaret Atwood, throughout the excerpt, portrays Offred's past and specifically describes two different notions of "love" Although Offred initially hesitates in bringing past events, as story moves on, she feels more comfortable with her past because she feels necessary to talk about what love really is. Through the use of stream of consciousness, and diction, she communicates to her responder with the difference between "falling in love" and "falling from love".
Let's firstly examine how stream of consciousness is used to deliver the composer's message. "Falling in love, I said. Falling into it, we all did then, one way or another. How could he hav emade such light of it? Sneered even. As if it was trivial for us, a frill, a whim." Notice how you are confronted with Offred's break in thoughts, mental process, and even psychological status. The key phrases/clauses here are "falling in love" and "falling into it". I think Atwood tries to distinguish between two notions of love. One is when you, as used in common English, fall in love. Another one is when you fall/break down from love. Moreover, this part of stream of consciousness is evident in the beginning of extract, "I don't want to be telling this story... I don't hav eto tell it. I don't have to tell anything, to myself or to anyone else. I could just sit here, peacefully. I could withdraw. It's possible to go so far in, so far down and back, they could never get you out." Bit of a contrast in two stream of consciousness huh?
Diction is another literary element that contributes the author's message that women fall in love and that women fall for men. The register such as "falling in love" and "falling for him; we are falling women" demonstrate how women fall in love to fall for men. In other words, after they fall in love, they make sacrifices for men, which is unreasonable. Atwood uses language that lists something cumulatively for enhanced rhetorical emphasis. An instance from the excerpt is "the more difficult it was to love the particular man beside us, the more we believed in Love, abstract and total. We were waiting, always, for the incarnation."
Margaret Atwood, throughout the excerpt, portrays Offred's past and specifically describes two different notions of "love" Although Offred initially hesitates in bringing past events, as story moves on, she feels more comfortable with her past because she feels necessary to talk about what love really is. Through the use of stream of consciousness, and diction, she communicates to her responder with the difference between "falling in love" and "falling from love".
Let's firstly examine how stream of consciousness is used to deliver the composer's message. "Falling in love, I said. Falling into it, we all did then, one way or another. How could he hav emade such light of it? Sneered even. As if it was trivial for us, a frill, a whim." Notice how you are confronted with Offred's break in thoughts, mental process, and even psychological status. The key phrases/clauses here are "falling in love" and "falling into it". I think Atwood tries to distinguish between two notions of love. One is when you, as used in common English, fall in love. Another one is when you fall/break down from love. Moreover, this part of stream of consciousness is evident in the beginning of extract, "I don't want to be telling this story... I don't hav eto tell it. I don't have to tell anything, to myself or to anyone else. I could just sit here, peacefully. I could withdraw. It's possible to go so far in, so far down and back, they could never get you out." Bit of a contrast in two stream of consciousness huh?
Diction is another literary element that contributes the author's message that women fall in love and that women fall for men. The register such as "falling in love" and "falling for him; we are falling women" demonstrate how women fall in love to fall for men. In other words, after they fall in love, they make sacrifices for men, which is unreasonable. Atwood uses language that lists something cumulatively for enhanced rhetorical emphasis. An instance from the excerpt is "the more difficult it was to love the particular man beside us, the more we believed in Love, abstract and total. We were waiting, always, for the incarnation."
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Women Finally WON! (well, not really... not "yet")
Successful FEMINISM resulted women being equal to men. Well, it seemed to be. Women had "made it", cheered Madison Avenue, because they could accomplish lots of things that they couldn't before. They have enrolled at "any" university, joined "any" law firms, and applied for credit at "any" bank. According to corporate, company leaders (I'm assuming they were male leaders who said this), there is no need to have women's equal opportunity policies. The reason is that they have become equal. Lawmakers (also male lawmakers I assume) also mention similar issue; an Equal Rights Amendment does not mean much.
But there are always HOWEVER's. I do not know whether you have noticed me foreshadowing this "however" by using parenthesis- more specifically, to indicate that they men are usually the ones who make such "comments". Some examples I can provide with can include: Childless women are depressed and bewildered; high powered women suffer from stress-inducted disorders, hair loss, and alcoholism; independent women have major health problems these days. Is this not ironic? I mean this is more than just ironic; it is more paradoxical than ironic. Women are in so much trouble these days- perhaps in more trouble than those who lived before the rebirth of feminism- yet they are supposed to celebrate. Their status has never been higher yet their emotional state has never been so much lower. Here's why!!:
The reason I believe comes from their ""EXPECTATIONS"". More specifically, it is their expectations of being equally granted with the men. For instance, the percentage of women complaining because of unequal employment opportunities jumped more than 10 per cent from the 70s. This can suggest that despite more women being employed, and more women being employed into better career, men who graduate with high school diploma are equally likely to get into job that women can get into with university degree.
Similar notion, although not very conspicuous, is evident in The Handmaid's Tale. The Gilead tries to manipulate and deceive fertile women by distinguishing them from infertile women. People in the positions of authority of the Gilead do this by assigning different tasks to fertile from infertile women. Or, wives of commanders are distinguished from "Of" women and infertile women who exist in the low hierarchy of the society. However, wives are still being gullified by the state because how devastating is it to see a random woman having sex with one's husband?
But there are always HOWEVER's. I do not know whether you have noticed me foreshadowing this "however" by using parenthesis- more specifically, to indicate that they men are usually the ones who make such "comments". Some examples I can provide with can include: Childless women are depressed and bewildered; high powered women suffer from stress-inducted disorders, hair loss, and alcoholism; independent women have major health problems these days. Is this not ironic? I mean this is more than just ironic; it is more paradoxical than ironic. Women are in so much trouble these days- perhaps in more trouble than those who lived before the rebirth of feminism- yet they are supposed to celebrate. Their status has never been higher yet their emotional state has never been so much lower. Here's why!!:
The reason I believe comes from their ""EXPECTATIONS"". More specifically, it is their expectations of being equally granted with the men. For instance, the percentage of women complaining because of unequal employment opportunities jumped more than 10 per cent from the 70s. This can suggest that despite more women being employed, and more women being employed into better career, men who graduate with high school diploma are equally likely to get into job that women can get into with university degree.
Similar notion, although not very conspicuous, is evident in The Handmaid's Tale. The Gilead tries to manipulate and deceive fertile women by distinguishing them from infertile women. People in the positions of authority of the Gilead do this by assigning different tasks to fertile from infertile women. Or, wives of commanders are distinguished from "Of" women and infertile women who exist in the low hierarchy of the society. However, wives are still being gullified by the state because how devastating is it to see a random woman having sex with one's husband?
Monday, November 8, 2010
The Irony of Freedom
Despite the active involvement of advocates of feminism for two decades that led to the "rebirth" of feminism in the 1970s, women, today, ironically, are not better off than those who had lived before the rebirth of feminism. First and most importantly, women have gained reproductive and legal rights. Furthermore, they have been more likely to pursue higher education which have resulted them entering trades and professions. However, problem arises here. Women who are more "loaded", "educated", and most importantly, "liberated" are not as free as before. In other words, women can now enjoy freedoms that were unavailable to them in the past, yet they feel more restricted than ever before. Very ironical is it not? Let me explain why this is not ironical but is actually paradoxical.
Before women were granted freedoms in the 1970s, they were free from many of things. Women were restricted in terms of legal rights, progressing to tertiary or quaternary educations, and entering trades. Today, women have freedom in terms of legal rights, educational rights, and trade union rights. Yet, they feel less free because they are preoccupied with appearance/image. They are concerned with bodies, facees, hair and clothes. They value the "surface" more than the "matter" itself. As a result, it causes stress to those women. Eating disorders have been rising exponentially to keep their "hot looks"; comestic surgery has become the rapidest growing medical industry, again, to improve "looks". Here is one example of eating disorders that happen during model contest. Some contestants suffer from anorexia nervosa to keep their minimal wieght. In Korea, many women's lack of confidence in their appearance results in the nation's rate of cosmetic surgery being the highest in the world. Today, the "self" restricts freedom rather than some forces external from the self. (NB: Carl Rogers, one of the humanistic psychologists, once said people are free to do anything or at least have the capacity for individual freedom to do anything if they are fully integrated beings- the gap between their actual selves and ideal selves should be minimised.)
Relating this notion of ironical (or paradoxical- the fact that women does not seem to be more free than before though they gained more freedom from the society) freedom to The Handmaid's Tale, the ironical part is that Offred is not aware whether she is more or less free than before. Completely by the corrupted state, Gilead, and under constant surveillance from the Eyes, she does not fully motivate herself to engage in activities that can change the way the society treats her. Instead, she seems to be motivated by Nick, who at the end of the novel, guides her to the Mayday.
Before women were granted freedoms in the 1970s, they were free from many of things. Women were restricted in terms of legal rights, progressing to tertiary or quaternary educations, and entering trades. Today, women have freedom in terms of legal rights, educational rights, and trade union rights. Yet, they feel less free because they are preoccupied with appearance/image. They are concerned with bodies, facees, hair and clothes. They value the "surface" more than the "matter" itself. As a result, it causes stress to those women. Eating disorders have been rising exponentially to keep their "hot looks"; comestic surgery has become the rapidest growing medical industry, again, to improve "looks". Here is one example of eating disorders that happen during model contest. Some contestants suffer from anorexia nervosa to keep their minimal wieght. In Korea, many women's lack of confidence in their appearance results in the nation's rate of cosmetic surgery being the highest in the world. Today, the "self" restricts freedom rather than some forces external from the self. (NB: Carl Rogers, one of the humanistic psychologists, once said people are free to do anything or at least have the capacity for individual freedom to do anything if they are fully integrated beings- the gap between their actual selves and ideal selves should be minimised.)
Relating this notion of ironical (or paradoxical- the fact that women does not seem to be more free than before though they gained more freedom from the society) freedom to The Handmaid's Tale, the ironical part is that Offred is not aware whether she is more or less free than before. Completely by the corrupted state, Gilead, and under constant surveillance from the Eyes, she does not fully motivate herself to engage in activities that can change the way the society treats her. Instead, she seems to be motivated by Nick, who at the end of the novel, guides her to the Mayday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)