"In the Gloaming", read the story carefully. Correctly identify the narrative point-of-view. Next, consider how this point-of-view allows the story to be successful. In what way is the narrative point of view important to the reader's understanding of the story's conflict, its plot, its characters, its theme or all of the above?
As we noticed in poetry, point-of-view (POV), as it relates to the voice of a poem, is an important feature of literature and can drastically shape the way we perceive a work's ultimate meaning. This is perhaps even more true with fiction. Consider the following ways of classifying point of view. While I don't like classifying things for the sake of classifying them, I do like classifications that better help me understand or think about a subject. Understanding narrative point of view will be essential in your analysis and interpretation of fiction.
1st person (participant):
This POV can result in a sense of immediacy or authenticity. The narrator, in some shape or form, is a character in the story, participating (if even to a very limited degree) in the events that transpire.
First person narration often makes the landscape of the narrator's mind as important as the external landscape of the story, especially if the narrator is close to the action of the story and even more so if the narrator is the protagonist (the opposite of a more passive and reliable observer like Nick Carraway). In other words, the human psychology or mental behaviors of the narrator are often a central part of the story's meaning or theme when a first person narrator is relaying the events. Some other aspects of first person narration that can explain its effects:
Plural (see second person): We are all involved. The reader and narrator are participating in the story together. Really, this overlaps with the second person narrator classification, but is distinguished by a more identifiable first person speaker (using the universal "we" to suggest we are all on the same journey through the story).
A Reliable Narrator: Think of the trustworthiness of a Nick Carraway (from The Great Gatsby) as the bedrock for a truthful story. In such a story, the narrator is somewhat removed from the action and is therefore more trustworthy. In Carraway's case, he reveals himself to be an objective observer and therefore we trust the facts he conveys even more. Gatsby is the protagonist, and Nick is simply an observer, somewhat removed from the turning points and important choices that shape the story. He is telling Gatsby's story here, participating in a minimal role. Carraway's importance is primarily as a credible witness. The further removed from the story (the less participation on the part of the narrator), the more a first person narrator will function like a third person narrator. Generally, the theme of such a story is more likely to be about society, group behaviors, etc. (more akin to the theme of a third person story).
An Unreliable Narrator: In Poe’s Cask of Amontillado, how much of the perceived insult is exaggerated by a psychotic narrator? It’s hard to tell and this makes the story even more interesting. By the end of the story, we know the person telling us about these events is someone who justifies murdering someone (and who not only takes some pleasure in the act, but is also prideful enough to convey his version of his murdering ways to an audience). Poe intentionally takes us into the unstable and paranoid perspective of the killer, which makes the tale even more horrifying.
Innocent Eye Narration: Irony and drama are created through the tension between the inexperience or ignorance of the narrator and the contrasting understanding or knowledge of the reader. We know more than the narrator knows! Flowers for Algernon (made into a movie with the title Charly) uses this to portray the thoughts of a limited IQ narrator whose intelligence is drastically increased through experimental medical procedures. Charly records his viewpoint in a journal, and at first we can see the gap between what he understands and what is really happening in the story. By the end of his journal (and the story), the medical experiments have failed and his entries show his return to limited understanding. He senses what he has lost but can no longer communicate the complexity of his experience. The results are heartbreaking! In such an example, there is a gap between what the narrator understands and the reality that the reader understands. This can make the narrator seem like a tragic, comic, or entertaining character (a tragic hero, a fool, or a sympathetic child). In Charly's case, he is clearly a tragic figure.
2nd person (reader participates with narrator)
In effect, the second person works like the recruiting poster on this slide. It tells the reader that they must become involved in the story and its effectiveness is often dependent on whether we are interested in the offer
If the reader accepts his or her own involvement in the story, the work can seem very personal and it can have a dramatic impact directly on the reader. On the other hand, second-person narration can potentially seem like a rhetorical gimmick. The story really isn't yours, and in fact the narrator is just pretending to be you, or understand your experiences. This approach can seem like an imposition on the reader, yet it can be effective if the author has an expert understanding of his or her audience and of human experience.
3rd person (non-participant)
One of the most common and traditional POVs used to tell a fictional story, the third person narrator is never actually present within a story (the narrator will never point to himself or herself with the pronoun "I"). Instead, the narrator acts as a medium through which we see the story (becoming a non-entity to some degree, or disappearing from the story itself as much as possible). The third person narrator is like a window that opens up on the events and characters that comprise the story. Such a narrative can seem more objective and trustworthy (like journalism that relays external events or just the facts).
Also, consider a person standing atop a tall building and looking down at the human ant-farm crawling through the city streets below. The third person narrator can tell his or her story from such a perch, removed from the story at a great distance. Such narratives, often more omniscient in their scope, can tell a story where a group of characters work as a single protagonist for a common cause or against a shared adversary. In such stories, the narrative point of view contributes to themes about human littleness, or about society and human behavior as a whole.
Omniscient: can describe thoughts and actions of many characters (a very expansive and inclusive window)
Neutral or objective: the voice reports only what seems to be factual (a very clean and clear window)
Editorial: the voice inserts its opinion about the events or characters in the story (a tinted or tainted window-- but nothing like the clouded or distorted glass offered by an unreliable first person narrator).
Limited/ selective omniscience:the narrator only tells the story as it is filtered through the thoughts and experiences of a single, selective person and protagonist (a window that only looks on the story from one character's sitting room, if you will). This can easily be confused with first person narrative, as the story seems to belong to a single person, as does a first person narrative. As the third person narrator narrows his or her focus on a single character, the theme also narrows down to an individual's obsessions, desires, and inner conflicts (like the theme of a first person story).
Stream of consciousness: records conscious and subconscious thoughts, creating the illusion of capturing a "stream of thought" and emotional responses on the page. While even more like first person narration, the third person narrator creates the illusion of a reporter of sorts: one who can objectively relay what is passing through the character's mind. Unlike Poe's murderous first-person psychopath, the third person narrator can actually sift through and reveal the subconscious motivations crawling around in the primitive corners of the character's brain-- areas the character himself would be unable to see or otherwise understand. In this case, the theme of the story might center more fully on individual human behavior and psychology.
Objective– fly on the wall: No thoughts are relayed– just the external actions and objects that can be seen by the camera. The narrator functions like a camera with a microphone, capturing and then conveying only sights and sounds (not emotion or thought). Anything we understand about a character's beliefs, feelings, or internal perspectives must be expressed in external actions (if a character is anxious, we might read a physical description about him tapping his pen on his desk and staring up at the clock on a nearby wall. As readers, we would not encounter a description of the same character's feelings: "A thousand 'what if' statements crowded into his mind and his stomach lurched around his partially digested lunch. What if she made it home first? What if she listened to the answering machine before he could delete the message?" This description conveys internal feelings and thoughts, and would place the narrative in the omniscient category, not "fly on the wall."
The Story: More to Consider
Setting?
The setting provides backdrop, context, mood, and sometimes foreshadowing for events in a story. In allegories, in particular, the setting is often symbolic and represents something more than a physical landscape (see Young Goodman Brown for a clear example of this).
Other times, the setting is simply part of the show that makes the story convincing. Like good props and sets in a stage performance, the setting persuades us to suspend our disbelief, or otherwise enter the reality of the fictive moment.
Especially in certain fictions, where the world at large is an acting force or even an antagonist, the setting can be discussed as a character.
Symbolism?
While symbolism is open to speculation and interpretation, it can be crucial to recognize its existence in certain stories.
If you were to read “Young Goodman Brown,” by Nathaniel Hawthorne and simply understand it to be a literal story about a man who meets the devil, you would have bypassed the complexity that makes the story interesting or even credible.
A recollection of the symbolism we discussed for poetry will prove helpful in reading symbolic fiction.
Theme?
How do all the elements of the story add up to create an overall point or meaning? Consider the story’s title, its conflict, and any suggestive or symbolic elements. After examining the characters, the setting, and the plot (among other things) what does the story say, overall?
The Flannery O’Connor quote in the textbook might make the answers to these questions seem impossible: “A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way." However, an essay or a discussion of a story (or poem for that matter) creates its own meaning for the story; or it better expresses the meaning that the reader experiences while reading the work of fiction. An essay about a short story often amounts to explaining this reading in order to support the essay writer’s central claim about the story’s theme.
Now what?
This cartoon illustrates some students’ reactions to academically dissecting a story: it seems like it might ruin the fun of reading. Don’t let this happen.
· While it may be tempting to reject critical reading and understanding in favor of the good old days, when reading only meant that you would be passively entertained, remember that you are taking classes like this to learn and improve.
· Take solace in the fact that improving your critical eye as a reader of literature will not prevent you from also enjoying it. Just remember to keep a good attitude. You will find that you can entertain yourself with your own thinking and this will amplify your enjoyment of the literature!
· What is the fun in writing about literature?
· If you think that you have to find the single, correct theme that has been established by experts for a given story, you are setting yourself up to be bored and resentful towards your work.
· What is truly exciting about writing that responds to literature (and any other writing, for that matter) is that it empowers you to express yourself in a unique and meaningful way. You are taking a stand and proclaiming that your perspective is insightful and even entertaining. You are exclaiming to your audience: I matter as a reader and a thinker!
· Of course, you have to put some time and energy into not only your writing, but also your reading. You have to back up your glorious claims with a bit of elbow grease and time. Deep thinking does not arrive under your pillow, delivered in the night by a generous fairy (at least, this is not typically reliable).
alaynafaith
extra.docx
0
