In Vivid Description

There have been aspects of all the short stories we have read that I have loved and hated.  There have been aspects that have confused me and intrigued me.  I have enjoyed the themes of some and the narrator's point of view in others.  Out of all of the short stories, the one I enjoyed the most was Greasy Lake by T. Coraghessan Boyle because of its descriptive details and rich characterization through the intriguing point of view.

There were several moments of deep description throughout the piece that caught my attention and I simply enjoyed reading.  One of the first moments that stood out to me was "[b]ehind me, the girl's screams rose in intensity, disconsolate, incriminating, the screams of Sabine women, the Christian martyrs, Anne Frank dragged from the garret" (Boyle).  Upon first read I was startled by the comparison of the girl's screams to such extreme examples.  The Sabine women, the Christian martyrs, and Anne Frank being grabbed from the garret are all examples of people who endured extreme horror and pain.  Comparing the screams of the girl to these people has an incredibly powerful impact and paints a vivid picture.  Another line that stood out to me was, "[i]n one of those nasty little epiphanies for which we are prepared by films and TV and childhood visits to the funeral home to ponder the shrunken painted forms of dead grandparents" (Boyle).  It was gruesomely vivid when referring to shrunken dead grandparents, but I had a good understanding of the feeling of horror and disgust that the narrator was feeling.  By using this extreme detailed comparison, the author is able to effectively convey his feelings to the reader.  A third line that stood out to me was "[i]t lay there like a wreck along the highway, like a steel sculpture left over from a vanished civilization" (Boyle).  This line had a profound impact on me.  It painted a vivid picture in my mind of what the scene would have looked like and I felt as though I was standing in the road looking at the car myself. The vivid descriptions that the author uses left impressions on my mind after I finished reading and I could not stop thinking about it.

The way the characters are developed through the first person point of view gives the reader a unique perspective on the main character and the supporting characters.  The narrator keeps referring to himself and the other guys in the story as "bad characters".  He lists off all the "bad" things they did such as smoking pot, drinking beer, and keeping a tire iron in the passenger seat.  In doing so he makes it seem like he wants the reader to think of him as being "bad" because being bad is a good thing.  Also because the narrator is talking about the events that unfold from only his perspective the reader does not get a complete picture of the situation.  The reader is more inclined to go along with what the narrator says and how he feels about what is happening.  I think that is one reason why I enjoyed the story so much.  I liked that after I read it a couple times I began to think about how the story would have been different if told from another perspective.  For example, what if it had been told from the perspective of the woman, or as he called her, the fox ?  I was intrigued by how much the author probably left out in order to protect himself.  Readers discover what kind of person the narrator was and what kind of people his friends were based solely on the narrator's word.  I found it to be very interesting to think about the potential bias involved.

The combination and vivid descriptions and point of view made Greasy Lake my favorite short story. I do not think it was my favorite plot, but I thought it was incredibly interesting.  Its complexity made me think about it long after I finished reading.

What Makes a Character Round?

Round characters are what makes stories believable and interesting. They drive stories forward, and, as readers, we are lost in their thoughts and actions. One thing that round characters have that makes them so compelling is motivation--the all-encompassing drive to make a dream come true. Without motivation, a character is flat. Furthermore, when a round character loses their motivation in a story, it creates tragedy. This can be witnessed firsthand in two short stories: Shiloh by Bobbie Ann Mason and Paul’s Case by Willa Cather.

In Shiloh, Leroy Moffitt dreams of building a log cabin. After an accident leaves him unable to drive, he goes up his former job as a truck driver and fills his time with crafts. His new craving for making things is admirable and productive, but his wife wants nothing to do with his log cabin plans. In an effort to get her to understand his desire, he takes her to a Civil War battlefield, and it is here that she requests a divorce. In this moment, his dream crumbles--what good is a cabin, after all, if he will live there alone?

In Paul’s Case, Paul has a yen for art and theatre but is trapped in a small, suburban town where he cannot access these things. One day, in meticulously planned desperation, he steals a large sum of money and runs away to New York City. He is finally surrounded by the things he loves, but when he runs out of money and his father arrives to look for him, he kills himself. Then, of course, his dreams are lost forever.

Objectively, these two stories are quite different. However, they actually possess many similarities. They both feature characters with artistic temperaments who dream of something bigger than themselves. They both live in places where their dreams go unheard, unseen, and uncultivated. They both go on long journeys to achieve their dreams, and both of their dreams are lost and futile. Finally, in the end, they both lose their motivation--the one thing that makes them both round characters.

False Love in the Hearts of Men

Relationships are hard, especially romantic ones.  People are difficult to read, uncertain of their feelings, and often find talking things out to be too much effort.  In Russell Bank's Sarah Cole: A Love Story and Bobbie Ann Mason's Shiloh, the lead male characters lose touch with their love interests.  They do so because they do not communicate with their significant others.

Ron never truly intended to love Sarah.  Yes, near the end of the story he tells one of Sarah's coworkers that he loved her.  He didn't, though; as Sarah's coworker puts it, "'Sure you did, honey'" (Banks 70).  Instead, Ron was in love with the idea of Sarah.  A woman so unattractive, somehow being in a relationship as attractive as he, is very appealing to a man with little sense of love.  Around Ron, Sarah was "self-conscious" (Banks 69), something she wasn't with her ex-husband.  Sarah went back to her ex-husband because Ron treated her so poorly.  Her ex-husband physically and mentally abused her, but Ron used her, which Sarah felt was worse.  Ron does not know how to love someone as who they are; he only knows how to make decisions at the turn of a dime.

Leroy, on the other hand, harbors feelings of regret and frustration.  These feelings carry over into his relationship with Norma Jean.  He recently injured his leg while truck-driving and is home more often.  This reminds Norma Jean of the "child who died as an infant, years ago", having Leroy at home so much, reminding her of the "early days of their marriage, before he went on the road" (Mason 461).  In order to compensate for his unwanted presence, Leroy wants to do something for his wife.  He wants to build her a log cabin.  He believes this log cabin will solve everything about their marriage, not realizing that in order to repair his relationship he will have to actually talk to Norma Jean and hear her side of the story.

Ron and Leroy certainly do not represent all men, nor do their significant others represent all women.  The two couples simply share the circumstances that neither man can connect with his woman.  Miscommunication and separate hopes and dreams distance each pair.  Both Ron and Leroy exhibit the trait of not truly loving their lover and are characterized as men distanced from their feelings and people close to them.

Relationships of Setting

Though the settings in “A Temporary Matter” and “Sarah Cole: A Love Story” are very different, they both play a similar role in the characterization. Since both are short stories, their settings are usually limited in the amount of places and tend to span a shorter amount of time or just one major event. However, the use of setting is different in the development of both story’s plots.

The entirety of “A Temporary Matter” takes place in Shoba and Shukumar’s house. The house is scarcely used in comparison to its potential. It was bought in the hope of their future family, so when those plans were hurt, the rooms meant for children were either left alone or turned into an office. However, the rooms still remind them of their past dream, causing Shoba to rarely enter the former nursery. Shukumar spends nearly all day in the house while Shoba will leave for work, further driving their relationship apart. When there power is shut off Shoba and Shukumar are given a new setting in which to approach each other. The empty presence of their house disappears and the are able to comfortably speak to each other.

Though the author says the exact location does not matter in the telling of “Sarah Cole: A Love Story,”  the setting of his story influences his characters actions and thoughts. Sarah and Ron first meet at a bar that traditionally serves middle-class men in their twenties or thirties. They later go to Ron’s apartment, where Sarah feels distanced from Ron, noticing how different their lives are. Whenever the two go out in public, they attend places where Ron would normally not go.The one time they are both at Sarah’s house, it is because Ron just happened to bike past. Otherwise, he makes excuses to avoid going to the house (and therefore meeting Sarah’s children), showing how he doesn’t want their relationship to progress beyond what they had in the beginning.

For both stories the setting is an extension of the characterization. Sarah Cole, who was very confident and flirtatious at the bar becomes shy and cold upon entering Ron’s apartment and realising how different their lifestyles are. Shoba and Shukumar, who were passive and distant during the day, became talkative and close when the power was shut off and created a new setting. The changes in setting allow for more to be learned about each character. However, setting is also telling of a character. Sarah’s apartment had oversized furniture and a picture of her children, showing both the economic difference between her and Ron and her care for her family, an aspect of her that Ron ignores. Ron’s apartment had his bicycle that served as Sarah’s biggest distinction for their differences and the Radarange characteristic of single men in their late twenties or lower thirties. Shoba, who had dedicated time to painting and decorating the nursery for their child, avoids the room after it is repurposed into an office, but Shukumar is bothered by it, showing how much more the stillborn baby is affecting Shoba than Shukumar. Also, since the last time Shukumar left the house for an extended period of time was when the baby was born, he begins to spend all of his time at the house, showing that it still did impact him.

Though setting impacts characterization for both stories, it does not impact plot in the same way. In “Sarah Cole: A Love Story” Sarah notices how Ron is avoiding certain settings with her, and what this means about how seriously he takes their relationship. In this way, the setting is one of the instigations of the plot, being one of the main points of argument in Sarah and Ron’s falling out, but is not the main reason for Sarah and Paul not continuing their relationship. However, in “A Temporary Matter” the change in setting provides an opening for events that drive the plot through the story. The darkness allows for Shoba and Shukumar to admit their secrets and become closer than before, but it also gives them confidence to change their actions during the day. The darkness possibly gave Shoba the confidence to leave Shukumar, but it also inspired Shukumar to change his isolated habits that had formed after the baby’s death. The change in setting also directly influenced a change in plot.

Affirmations of Faith

Both Paul of Paul’s Case and Leroy of Shiloh  are unhappy with their lives, though they live in extremely different circumstances. Paul’s unhappiness stems from his condition in society, while Leroy’s stems from his condition in his marriage. Regardless of these differences, Paul and Leroy view the solutions to their problems in a similar way. They both have an obsession with a goal that they feel will improve their lives: Paul’s is attainment of wealth and culture, Leroy’s is building a log cabin. Despite each character’s faith in his goal, these goals end up ruining their lives as opposed to improving them. The structure of these stories allows the authors to frequently remind the reader of these goals, and this makes their results all the more poignant.

Paul and Leroy are both obsessed with a plan to do something grand. Paul desires to escape, as he isn’t satisfied with his life. He doesn’t like the people around him, he doesn’t like where he lives, and he doesn’t like his social status. He’s frequently finding ways to escape, most often through music and theatre. These give him a temporary break from his life, but he has ideas of something more permanent. Throughout the story, Paul yearns for wealth, beauty, and culture, and he sees escaping to New York City as his path to attaining them. Paul is obsessed with this idea of leaving for New York, and he has planned his escape a hundred times. Similarly, Leroy is set on his plans to build a log cabin for him and his wife. He’s fixated on the idea that building this cabin will mend his marriage. His marriage has been going South since he injured himself and could no longer drive his truck. His wife seems to have preferred having him not around, and he believes building them a house will make her happy again.

Each character believes strongly in their plans. When Leroy’s wife makes a comment that upsets him, he’ll simply mention the log cabin and how nice it’ll be to live in their own house. Like Paul, who has planned his escape to New York a hundred times, Leroy pours over the blueprints for the log cabin almost every day. This constant affirmation from the author of Leroy’s faith in the log cabin to fix his marriage makes the moment when he realizes that he’s wrong significantly more poignant. His dream that has been built up for the duration of the story has been crushed. The reader doesn’t learn Leroy’s fate however, unlike Paul’s Case. Paul’s reaction to the loss of his dream is clear to the reader. When his dreams are crushed after running to New York with stolen money and subsequently being found out, he cannot bear to live his old life again. If the reader didn’t know that Paul has planned this escape a hundred times, she or he may not take his reaction as seriously. The assurance of Paul’s faith in his dream gives insight to suicide.

Cather and Mason structure their stories by using repetition of the protagonists’ goals to add poignancy and strength to their conclusions. Because the conclusions of these stories require insight to the characters’ minds to be understood, this strategy works well. Both Leroy’s and Paul’s dreams are shattered, and though they react in different ways, these reactions are made stronger by continuous affirmations of their faith in these dreams.

False Hope

Short stories are brief and often focused on only a few characters.  In both Shiloh and A Temporary Matter the focus is on a husband and wife who have experienced a loss.  In both pieces the structure of the story sets up the reader to make certain assumptions about the outcome of the story, but then goes against the expectations at the conclusion.  The narration and point of view of both stories contribute to the element of surprise at the end of both pieces.  The combination of structure and narrator's point of view in both stories contributes to building up the element of surprise at the conclusion of each story.

In Shiloh, the plot is structured around husband and wife, Leroy and Norma Jean Moffitt, who have experienced much tragedy including the death of their infant child.  The narration is from a third person point of view which leaves many holes and questions in regard to what each character is actually thinking and feeling.  The structure builds up Leroy and Norma Jean by describing the ways they are both coping with their losses.  Leroy copes by obsessively planning the construction of a log cabin for he and his wife to reside in permanently, while Norma Jean copes by trying new activities such as going back to school and cooking new dishes.  The narrator's lack of information makes it seem as though both people are struggling with their losses but are trying to heal in order to rebuild their relationship that has fallen apart.  The structure and the narration builds up this expectation until the final scene when the pair goes to Shiloh.  They pack a picnic and laugh together.  It seems as though they will finally discuss their feelings and begin the healing process which is why it comes as a kind of disappointment when Norma Jean tells Leroy she is leaving him.  The story is structured to make it seem like Leroy and Norma Jean will eventually rediscover their love, and the narrator's third person point of view withholds information that would lead readers to assume otherwise.

Like Leroy and Norma Jean, Shoba and Shukumar in A Temporary Matter have experienced the death of their child and are struggling to manage.  The narration of this piece is done by the husband, Shukumar, which makes readers biased towards his feelings and opinions.  Like in Shiloh, the plot is structured around the two characters and appears to lead towards the eventual rediscovery of their lost love.  Much of the piece is structured around Shoba and Shukumar playing a game each evening in the dark during which they tell each other something that they never had before.  As the game unfolds, it seems as though the pair is falling back in love with each other through their honesty.  When the lights come back on and they are no longer in the dark, readers expect it to be the light at the end of a dark tunnel where two lovers find each other again.  Due to the fact that Shukumar is expecting this conclusion and readers are biased towards his opinions, the actual ending comes as a shock.  Like in Shiloh, the wife tells the husband that she is leaving him.  The structure and the narration had everyone thinking that the opposite would happen.  However, if the opposite had happened and the two rekindled their love, the story would not have been as riveting.

Both of these short stories exemplify what a crucial role the narration and structure play in building a story that is worth reading.  Due to the fact that in both stories the conclusion is not what most readers expect it to be, the story is more memorable and impactful.  After being invested in the lives of the two couples and expecting a positive outcome, it is almost as if the reader feels a loss as well.

Despair and Denial

      Short stories, although brief, are able to tell tales just as powerful and moving as any other literary piece of work crafted. A Temporary Matter, written by Jhumpa Lahiri, and Paul's Case, by Willa Cather, are two short stories that appear, on the surface, to be wildly different, however, they share a similar message of desire and attempting to shield pain in hopes of recovering happiness. Through the minds of the characters as they live their lives, two separate stories of sadness and pain, present for very different reasons, are unveiled and dealt with but never disappear. With the sorrow and unhappiness that the characters in these two short stories are plagued with, the unlikely pair of tales become strikingly similar to one another while contrasting each other by the issues being handled.  

       In A Temporary Matter, a young couple by the names of Shoba and Shukumar are going through very challenging times ever since their baby had been born dead. Shoba, the wife is always gone to work by time her husband, Shukumar, wakes up. Shukumar rarely leaves the house at all since his advisor gave him his spring semester off from graduate school after the news of the baby stillbirth. The pair rarely spoke to one another and were simply going through the motions of life day after day avoiding the obvious void in their lives until they receive news that their power will be going out for one hour each day for a period of five days during the evening. In response to the electricity notice, Lahiri writes, "Something happened when the house was dark. They were able to talk to each other again," (Lahiri 19) and to the couples' surprise, the dim lighting leads them to eat dinner together while sharing secrets that they have never shared before. Slowly, they begin to rekindle their marriage during the hour of darkness they have each night together; the couple enjoys the dark so much that they keep the lights off past the hour of no electricity on some nights. However, at the end of the five days, the story flips once again. With the lights on, Shoba tells her husband that she has been looking for an apartment to move into and has found one and signed the lease to it before coming home that evening; the sudden happiness between them was simply not enough for her. In a sort of reflection after Shoba's words, Lahiri writes, "She wouldn't look at him, but he stared at her. It was obvious that she'd rehearsed the lines. All this time she'd been looking for an apartment, testing the water pressure, asking a realtor if heat and hot water were included in the rent. It sickened Shukumar, knowing that she had spend these past evenings preparing for a life without him," (Lahiri 21) revealing the real purpose behind the sudden enjoyment of each others company and the secrets that they each had kept for years finally being exposed. In Shukumar's mind, everything between him and his wife was getting better and he finally saw a silver lining develop in their marriage after the dinners they shared in the candlelight. Unfortunately, his wife did not see this development and was determined to start fresh without her past saddening her and darkening her future.  

      On a similar note, Paul's Case tells quite a different tale but involves the same underlying message of despair and unhappiness with the life the character is living. Paul is a young boy living a life he despises and denies is his own. He dreams of living in New York City, dressing in extravagant clothing, attending all the operas and Broadway shows he can find, and being filthy rich and happy. The closest thing he has to any of these dreams is working in Carnegie Hall without any of his family knowing his does so and he desires with all of his being to have more. He ends up stealing money from his own father and running off to New York City, staying in an expensive hotel, and living like a king for a few days until he is nearly caught. He claims that the wealthy people he sees are "his own people," (Cather 154) and not a single person questioned him for being where he was, he was dressed for and acted the part he desired. However, although Paul was able to achieve his lifelong dream of living in New York City like royalty for a handful of days and nights, he was unable to find true happiness and forget about the sadness he had always felt. He ends up killing himself by jumping in front of a train. Cather states, "As he fell, the folly of his haste occurred to him with merciless clearness, the vastness of what he had left undone. There flashed through his brain, clearer than ever before, the blue of Adriatic water, the yellow of Algerian sands," to signify all Paul realizes that he has left unfinished in his life and all he will miss out on as a result. Cather is making the point that Paul doesn't see himself as ever being truly happy and that not even the fulfillment of his New York dreams could change this. 

      In both A Temporary Matter and Paul's Case, no character finds a happy ending to the problems and despair they endure. The three characters all attempt to find a solution to their issues, however, both story endings are filled with more sadness and despair than the fictional tales began with. Both stories take their characters on roller coasters of emotions and lead them to only feel worse about their situations; happiness in these stories simply does not exist with suicide and marital separation being the end results. Although these stories are about very different situations in life and revolve around dissimilar characters, they are more common than one may think; the central message is the same and both tales express little hope for finding a shred of real happiness in life. 

The Ephemerality of Love

       Short stories are just that, short. They show a small part of the character's lives to convey a message. Both Russell Banks's "Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story" and Jhumpa Lahiri's "A Temporary Matter" tell stories that reflect the ways people treat the ones they love and show the temporary nature of love when people are too different. Both stories are about failed relationships and dig into exactly why the relationships failed.

       In "Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story" we see the narrator, Ron, enter into and depart from a relationship with a woman named Sarah. Ron describes Sarah as "the homeliest woman [he] has ever known" (Banks 1). He pursues her out of some morbid curiosity. He is in no way attracted to her, but for some reason, he seeks out a relationship with her and claims to be in love with her. However, Ron seems to take Sarah for granted, only really showing affection when they have sex. Ultimately, the audience sees that the relationship fails because they are too different. Ron's life is far more glamorous than Sarah's and they come apart because of their different attitudes and lifestyle choices.

       The relationship in "A Temporary Matter" is very different. We are presented with a married couple who has recently lost a child. The narrative primarily follows Shukumar, so we mainly see his perspective. Through his descriptions, we see that the couple has been changing and Shukumar feels that things are different. He describes his wife, Shoba, as "looking... like the type of woman she'd once claimed she would never resemble" (Lahiri 1). It is the change in attitude that ultimately ends their relationship. Shukumar still maintains his belief that they are working out their problems, but Shoba has changed her mind. She wants something different. By building up to telling him that she is leaving, she inadvertently builds up his hope that they will be able to repair their relationship. This relationship also fails because they develop very different attitudes that no longer mesh. 

       Both stories show reasons that people who supposedly love each other will trick each other. They also build an image of love that is temporary and fragile. The depictions of love they give are proven to be unsustainable and fail in the end due to the differences between the characters in the relationships. Ron and Sarah are from very different social and economic spheres, while Shoba and Shukumar have grown apart and fallen out of love. The stories are different circumstances, but they both show how fragile and temporary love is as well as how circumstances can easily cause a relationship to fail.

The Theme of Failed Unrequited Love in "Shiloh" and "Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story"

Even stories that seem to have no commonalities end up having a binding similarity. “Shiloh”, by Bobbie Ann Mason, is about a hurt truck driver coming home to his wife who apparently kept the relationship going because her husband was never around. “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story”, by Russell Banks, revolves around a man becoming involved with a woman because of the twisted interest he had in her regarding her ugly looks. On the surface the two stories seem to have nothing to do with each other, but with a deeper look the stories encompass the same theme of failing love due to a one sided relationship.

Both  “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” and “Shiloh” have a love story in common, albeit not the same tale. “Shiloh” has a husband-wife duo that are struggling with a change in their marriage. That change being that the husband, who typically was never home due to his profession, is now home all the time. “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” has a man who kindles a relationship with a woman because she is “the most unattractive woman he has ever seen” and that  “fascinates him” (Banks 56-57). Though different settings, circumstances, and characters, the authors convey the same message that one sided relationships fail. In “Shiloh”, Leroy, the husband, feels more for his wife, Norma, than she does for him. “Since [Leroy] has been home, he has felt unusually tender about his wife… but he can’t tell what she feels about him… [and] wishes she would celebrate his permanent homecoming more happily” (Mason 491). Sarah, in her story, feels more for Ron than he does for her, which becomes obvious when she tells him “you don’t want to meet my kids” and then realizes “no, you don’t want my kids to meet you, that’s it” (Banks 69). The one sided love of the two relationships in different settings still ends up with the same result.

Unrequited love ended the marriage of Leroy and Norma and ended the peculiar relationship of Sarah and Ron. “Shiloh” comes to a finish as Norma tells Leroy she wants a divorce and will not try to work anything out with him. “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” has Ron yelling at Sarah to get out his apartment and essentially out of his life. The authors show, in different ways, how love has to come from both sides as equally as it can in order for it to work in favor of both involved. This theme of unreturned affection ruining relationships is prevalent in both short stories between both sets of couples.

The Unreliability of a Temporary Love Story

In a short story, the comprehension of the audience relies solely on the reliability of the narrator. Because what the audience is seeing is such a small piece of a person's life or such a condensed version of a relationship, the only evidence of the story's truth comes from the narrator. This means that point of view, what the narrator reveals and feels, and the order in which information is revealed shape the entire story and the audience's perspective in a way that is quite unique to short stories. In the story Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story, the point of view and the narrator's honesty is essential to the audience's intended perspective. In A Temporary Matter, the knowledge that the narrator has (or the lack of knowledge) sets the audience up for as much irony as the character himself appreciates. The narrator’s realm of understanding influences how much the audience can understand, and, therefore, contributes enormously to the unfolding of the plot and to the proximity of the audience to the story.

It's hard to tell whether or not "Ron," the narrator of Sarah Cole, is reliable, but this ambiguity shapes the story and plays an active role in the plot. Ron alternates between telling the story in first person, from ten years after the action happens, and in third person, at the time of his relationship with Sarah. When writing in third person, he tells it more or less without bias, seemingly just relating facts about the two people's lives and levels of attractiveness. In first person, however, Ron shows regret for his behavior and an understanding of his thought processes gained by time and experience. This juxtaposition could increase the honesty of the story, but in truth it just makes it harder for the audience to know what's real and what's not. Because we don't necessarily know truth from lies, we are alienated from the story, while still being drawn in by the mystery and action.

In A Temporary Matter, the narrator simply misunderstands what is happening in his marriage, setting both himself and the audience up for disappointment. He misinterprets his wife's purpose for telling secrets in the dark; she intends to clear the air before leaving him, while he believes that she is trying to regain the closeness lost with their baby. The audience knows no more than what he tells, so we go along with that belief until the truth is revealed. This plays with the audience's emotions, allowing them to accompany the narrator in optimism before being crushed by the irony of the situation. We know as much as the narrator can reveal, bringing us closer to him and his emotions, and to the story.

The knowledge that the narrator of each story has and reveals shapes how the audience sees and reacts to the story. If we see a narrator as honest, it does not matter if he is wrong in the end -- we will follow him intensely through the story. If a narrator is somewhat suspect, however, we will follow him warily and question the truth of everything he relates. The two stories demonstrate this, both through the literal structure and point of view of each, and through the emotional response that the audience has to each story.

In the Thoughts

When reading a book, you often have only your own thoughts to supplement the plot and narration.  Maybe you read the book with a friend or discussion group and get their ideas as well.  Very rarely will the author regularly include the thoughts of multiple characters.  Keri Hulme includes the thoughts of Kerewin, Joe, and Simon in The Bone People, adding personality and deeper connections to the text in an omniscient third person point of view.       

      

            The third person point of view collides with short paragraphs, indented to indicate that these paragraphs come directly from the main characters.  These thoughts included add invaluable insight to the characters and move the plot along.  They show that Kerewin has a convoluted family life that causes her not to trust anyone.  She chooses to live alone and secluded because her family growing up was not the nicest bunch of eggs.  They show that Joe deeply regrets what he does to Simon.  They show that Simon calls himself Clare, that Clare is his true name but he never speaks nor lets anyone know that name.

            If there was only first person, or the thoughts of one of the main characters, The Bone People would be far less interesting and complex.  The thoughts add layers of intricity, evolving the piece into something more three-dimensional.  Reading their thoughts brings the reader closer to the story, encouraging the reader to become more invested.  The book would certainly not be the same without these indented thoughts to supplement the points of view, to breathe life into the events depicted.

Philip: Removed from Reality

Of Human Bondage is a lengthy novel: it chronicles the many defining events of the life of Philip Carey. It’s written in the third person omniscient point of view. Despite his ability to paint a full picture of each character, Maugham strays from Philip’s point of view very rarely. Because the novel’s purpose is to chronicle the life of Philip, the narrator will only narrate from another point of view if it’s conducive to our understanding of Philip. When the narrator strays, it’s to contrast Philip's perception of events with the actuality of them, this increases the reader's understanding of the character.

The third person omniscient view is helpful in Of Human Bondage for one particular reason: it allows Maugham to focus on the thoughts of Philip while still providing needed information to the reader that exists outside of the realm of Philip’s mind. The narrator is constantly alerting the reader of Philip’s reactions to different situations. The reader is always aware of how Philip feels about his surroundings, be it the scenery, a person, or a situation. Often a chapter will start with the thoughts of Philip, and the narrator will backtrack later by bringing awareness to the reader of events not previously discussed. This allows Maugham to explore Philip’s thoughts in depth without having to narrate every event that he reacts to.

Maugham uses this point of view to discuss not only events, but to discuss the emotions of other characters as well. With the vast majority of the novel being told about Philip’s thoughts and emotions, it would be difficult to grasp the reality of situations without an understanding of the thoughts of others. When Mildred reveals to Philip that she and Griffiths are seeing each other, Philip mentions that Griffiths has no money in an attempt to deter her from him. Mildred responds that she can make her own living. Without the narrator adding that “she thought of her rent due on Saturday and the baby’s keep, but did not say anything,” (430-431) the reader wouldn’t know that she’s actually quite worried about her finances, despite telling Philip otherwise. This is an important detail, as Mildred knows she can’t keep up her standard of living without financial support.The reader knows then that she wants Philip to think otherwise.

If Maugham had written Of Human Bondage in first person, the reader would be subject to a somewhat distorted narration of events. Philip’s emotions are often so powerful that they are overwhelming, and without an outside perspective the reader would likely develop different opinions on the majority of characters in the novel. The third person omniscient point of view fits this novel well as it allows Maugham to give the reader a full and complete perspective on events when needed.

Taking A Closer Look

With William Somerset Maugham's large array of characters within Of Human Bondage, a third-person omniscient point of view for this novel functions stupendously. Each character, whether essential or secondary to the novel, is able to be understood and acknowledged by the audience due to the helpful impact of this narration. In addition, no bias or false accounts are included in the novel because this point of view is merely an outsiders words. With this form of narrative being so all-knowing and informative, Maugham is able to delve into the inner workings of each character and their minds.
Although third-person point of view allows for the perspectives of numerous characters to be displayed, Maugham focuses on one for the majority of his novel: Philip Carey. Of Human Bondage focuses on Carey's life from when he was a small child to middle age. Due to the large span of time that is covered, Maugham's use of Philip's point of view so exclusively in the majority of the novel can be justified. When first introduced, Philip is a young boy whose parents have recently died and he has to live with his aunt and uncle. It becomes clear quite quickly that Philip is a boy that will live a troubled life in one way or another due to the insight of his thoughts and feelings that the third-person narration provides the readers with. As time goes on and Philip's life progresses, his thoughts and mindset changes like the wind. Philip has relationships with handfuls of women and without his constant stream of conscience that is provided, the reader would be at a loss for the actions he takes with these women. In particular, Philips relationship with Mildred can barely be comprehended even with the third-person narration. Philip's feelings toward Mildred are described in one instance as a date of theirs ends by his thought that "He disliked her, and yet, he knew not why, he wanted to be with her" (Maugham 303). Clearly, this is quite a contradicting thought for Philip to have. If the reader was not provided with his thoughts, especially in circumstances such as this, the relationship between Mildred and Philip would be absolutely befuddling.
On another note, the third-person point of view also aids in the progression of the plot in the novel. Maugham is able to connect events that take place in the story of Philip's life to ones that happen during other stages of his life, enabling the overall story to continue smoothly. This is possible by using the thoughts of different characters and connecting them to events in the story, enabling new situations to take place. For example, when characters reflect on events in the past or have flashbacks, the reader is able to learn more about this character and what has taken place in their life. This enables to novel to progress in a new light due to this new knowledge given to the reader. One instance in the book that compares to this is when Mildred goes away to find someone to take care of her baby. The text goes from Philip reflecting on his thoughts and things that he felt he needed to say to Mildred to stating, "Mildred sent him a postcard to announce her safe arrival" (Maugham 390), providing a smooth progression of time within the story. With this slight jump in time, the novel is able to progress, as it does continuously elsewhere, to cover Philip's lifetime.
Third-person narration and point of view was the best choice for this novel because it provides a holistic analysis of the characters and all that went through their minds while progressing the plot in a smooth fashion. If this novel had been written in a first person point of view, the reader would be robbed of an enormous amount of information about other characters and life outside of Philip Carey's mind. The third person narration enables information to be shared with the reader about all people and society without providing a bias or false accounts. In addition, the plot would have been choppy and jump from years and events like ones mind would do whereas third person provides an uninterrupted and steady flow of time and all concepts and events touched upon. Overall, third person narration suits this novel best in all ways.

Three Characters in Third Person

Emma Welsh

9-2-16

Three Characters in Third Person

In Keri Hulme’s The Bone People, the characters are revealed using a third person omniscient point of view with the focus on three main characters: Kerewin Holmes, Simon Gillayley, and Joe Gillayley (though it will occasionally focus on some minor characters). When a scene occurs with the presence of two or more main characters the narrative will  usually focus on the thoughts and actions of one character, and display the other’s thoughts as memories or consideration later on. This happens when Kerewin and Simon first meet, the narrative tends to focus on Kerewin to create mystery surrounding Simon’s character.

Using third person omniscient is helpful for full character development.  Because the focus changes characters, we are able to learn both what others observe of the character as well as the characters thoughts. A very basic example of this is in Simon’s name. When Joe and his wife were trying to discover his name, they listed multiple names and gauged his reaction to each. When they said Simon, he visibly reacted. However, we know from Simon’s thoughts that he calls himself Clare or Claro, not Simon. Though the other characters observed one thing, the thoughts of the character revealed another, contrasting idea.

This point of view is also helpful in plot development. Though the story is focused on the three main characters and what happens to them together, third person omniscient allows for the story to continue with just one character. This allows for personal experiences of each character such as Simon’s encounter with the mummified rabbits or at the end of the book when the three separate post-brawl. We are able to follow each character’s plotline even when they are separated, creating a more expansive story.

Had  The Bone People been told from a different point of view, I don’t think the book would have made as much sense. If it were first person, the narrative would have been limited to the thoughts and observations of one character, and we probably wouldn’t have had as full of an understanding of each character. If the narrative were first-person focused on Simon, we wouldn’t have understood the meaning Kerewin’s guitar that he broke, or any of the discussions surrounding his behavior. The same goes for the others, if it were focused on only one, we would lose pivotal information on the others. Also, if the book were written in third person limited omniscient the same problem would occur. Third person dramatic would not include the characters thoughts, leaving out a lot of the reasoning and mystery of the novel such as Simon’s true name or Joe’s thought process that brings him to hit Simon.

Shifting Perspectives

The Bone People by Keri Hulme has no constant point of view. It changes quite frequently, swapping tenses and narratives every other page, on average. In just the passage I chose for my explication essay, for example, the tense changes over half a dozen times, as does the narrative. While this makes for a complicated book to read and understand at any given time, the story could not be told any other way.

While The Bone People takes place in the present (or what was the present in 1983), it is rooted in the past. Joe does what he does because of the way he was raised in the past, trying his best to raise a child that the past thrust upon him while taking away everyone else in his life. Kerewin’s family was abandoned to the past, a past that she refuses to acknowledge even when she is alone. As for Simon, all that is known about him was left at the bottom of the ocean, waiting for the past to destroy it. Then, there are the references to New Zealand mythology that truly move the story forward, for without them, all three would likely be separated forever, with Kerewin dead and Joe and Simon trapped in suffering. Therefore, the story is not confined to the present. If it was told entirely in present tense, it would lose its connection to ancient trauma and fables that all three characters faced and heard about. By contrast, if it was told entirely in past tense, it would lose its immediacy.

The narrative is a bit trickier to understand. For the most part, the book is told by a third person narrator, who shows how each character is feeling, usually focusing on one character per section. Sometimes, though, it changes to first person, and we are offered glimpses into the tortured mind of Kerewin, the weary mind of Joe, or the incomprehensible mind of Simon. This can be confusing, but similar to the story being too big to be contained in one tense, it is much too big to be told by one person. If the story were told solely by Joe, Simon, or Kerewin, the thoughts, actions, and emotions of the other two characters would be lost. Even so, a third person narrator still would not do: we would know why everyone did what they did, but we would not know exactly what went through their minds when they did it. This concept can best be summed up by a quote from the book’s prologue: “They were nothing more than people, by themselves...Together, all together, they are the instruments of change (4).”

This book was dense, complex, and astounding. If anything about it was different--if the author had succumbed to conventional desires and chosen one tense, one narrator, etc.--it would lose its density and its complexity. Most importantly, it would lose its compelling nature. If this story was told like an ordinary story, it would become just that, and the extraordinary story told in The Bone People would not have been told.

A Bird's Eye View

The third person omniscient point of view of Toni Morrison's Sula is the framework for a complex story.  There is a copious amount of characters in the novel and the unbiased third person perspective allows readers to delve into the novel and discover who each character is holistically.  The events which take place throughout the novel are  shocking and impactful for readers.  Due to the fact that these events are presented through the eyes of an outside onlooker, readers acquire a deep understanding of the events themselves rather than being persuaded by a certain character's biased opinion to view an event in a certain way.

Throughout the novel, several characters die in seemingly grotesque and horrific ways.  The first major death in the novel is Plum who is set afire by his mother and burns to death.  During this scene the reader does not entirely understand what is going on because they cannot see into Eva's mind and view her inner thoughts to understand what she is doing.  Without understanding why Eva is burning her son, the event seems horrible, cruel, and baseless and readers are left with feelings of confusion regarding why a mother would burn her son.  In the moment it seems that Hannah is the only other person besides Eva who understands what is going on as "the two women did not speak, for the eyes of each were enough for the other" (Morrison 48).  Readers are left to wonder what each woman is thinking behind their eyes and why they know what each other is thinking.  This scene would have been entirely different if it had been in the first person through the eyes and thoughts of either Hannah or Eva.  Seeing their inner thoughts would have provided clarity for the event.  Readers would probably have felt sympathetic towards Eva with the knowledge, in the moment, of why she did what she did.  A great amount of suspension builds up as readers are left with thoughts about why the horrible and shocking event occurred.

 The third person point of view plays a key role in the scene when young Chicken drowns in the river.  Sula and Nel are the only two characters during this scene and readers are not able to see exactly what each girl is thinking.  During the scene "they expected him to come back up, laughing.  Both girls stared at the water" (Morrison 61).  Readers are left to ponder what each girl is thinking and feeling during this time as they stare into the water because of the third person point of view.  If this scene had been told from either Sula or Nel's perspective, readers would have taken away different feelings.  The presentation of the event would have been more biased.

Soon after, Hannah lights herself on fire and jumps out the window.  This too seems just as random and gruesome as Plum's death and without knowing what Hannah was thinking before she set herself on fire, readers have no sense of why a person would do such a thing.  During this scene, the third person point of view captures the big picture of what is going on.  Readers experience the neighbors running to get water, Eva jumping out the window, and the two women in the hospital.  Readers are unable to see what Eva is thinking when she jumps out of the window which allows readers to think for themselves about why she may have done that.  Due to the fact that readers experience the scene from a sort of birds eye view, the perspective on the event is very broad and a bit confusing.  At the conclusion of the scene Eva discusses how "...Sula had watched Hannah burn not because she was paralyzed, but because she was interested" (Morrison 78).  This moment builds up a lot of tension as so many thoughts are racing through the reader's mind.  Readers are questioning why a child would watch their mother burn with interest.  It does not seem normal but, because readers see this from the third person point of view, there is no explanation.

The third person point of view allows readers to experience these strange and intense events without being influenced by a certain character's point of view.  It allows each reader to form their own opinions about each character and come to their own conclusions about the nature of each event.  This style of narration builds suspense and pushes forward the plot in an engaging and well-rounded way.

Seeing A Deeper Layer

Each main character in The Bone People is uniquely expressed by the points of view that help to tell the story. The complicated past of each person can be shown through the way that their thoughts are portrayed, and the organization of thought furthers the story and creates a fuller and more riveting experience for the audience. Keri Hulme's use of third person omniscient alternating with short bursts of first person narration provides a deeper understanding of the characters' minds than what could be given by any other method of narration.

Because the point of view is shifted around between the three main characters, the audience is able to view the story in its entirety and to see each character through his/her own eyes and through the eyes of others. The shifts in point of view allow the audience to understand everything, adding frequently to the sense of dramatic irony. Joe thinks often, for the first half of the book, of telling Kerewin something serious. Though we do not know what Joe needs to tell her for a while, we are aware that there is something that Kerewin doesn't know that will eventually be exposed and will affect the relationship between Joe and Kerewin. This knowledge builds anticipation and, therefore, propels the story forward towards that point where the information will be revealed, and towards to the aftermath. In addition to plot development, third person omniscient narration also allows the audience to see each character complexly. Our view of each person is limited neither to the character's thoughts about himself, nor to other character's impressions of that person. We know Kerewin's feelings about herself and her life, but, without the outside information that is attributed to her through other people's thoughts, we would be much more likely to heavily sympathize with her. As it is, however, we sympathize with her familial situation and her intelligence, but the roughness and the way that she actively pushes people away is also brought into our awareness. In this way, so much more is known about each person and about the relationships and events in the story.

In addition to narration shifts between characters, shifts between third and first person are also included, once again adding to the depth of each character. Shifts are mostly indicated by an indentation in the work, a sort of aside that shows, in first person, what a character is thinking. This reveals to us the personal voice of each character. We hear their thoughts rather than hearing a description of their thoughts or of physical reactions to something, and this creates an intimacy between character and audience that otherwise might not be felt. A character's thoughts can be more explicit in feeling than a description of the feeling; it is the difference between explaining a character and showing them. Much like dialogue, the thought shows more raw emotion than can be described by another party and thus gives the audience a different or more in-depth perspective on the character or situation. Through this, we learn more about each character and the way they look at the things around them, which also aids in our view of the story as a whole.

The way that Keri Hulme has her characters tell their story is the most effective way possible. The audience gets the full view of the story, with added irony and anticipation built in to the storytelling and with a holistic view of each character that is backed up by every perspective that it would be possible to include within the realm of the book. The book is rendered artistic through the use of the various points of view and, with the complexities of the narration, the story is able to demonstrate its purpose more clearly than it otherwise could. The Bone People is not a complicated story, but the depth that is added by Hulme's use of point of view allows it to connect to the audience in an unparalleled way.

Coming to Our Own Conclusions

Sula By Toni Morrison is a novel primarily driven by character actions and motivations. The book is narrated in the third person, or an omniscient point of view, allowing Morrison to give us further insight into the characters and their motivations. While doing this, Morrison's narrator helps the audience understand the characters better and also not be so quick to judge their actions, because the narrator doesn't seem to judge them. The narration is very truthful, and is careful not to place any sort of judgement or blame, forcing the audience to observe the complexity of the situations and make judgments for themselves. 

The use of a third person narrator allows us as the audience to get to know all the characters equally well. This adds depth to the characters as well as the story, because it gives us a better understanding of why people did what they did and how their actions affected others. When Sula sleeps with Nel's husband, Jude, we see Sula and Nel's reactions separately, giving us a better understanding of what happened and why each character did what they did. Sula believes that since they are best friends and sex isn't really a big deal to her, that it should be alright for her to sleep with Jude. We get insight into Sula's character by seeing her inner thoughts about how she believes she and Nel share everything. Nel doesn't think that way, she was raised to believe that sex should be confined to marriage. Nel also doesn't seem to believe that she and Sula share everything. Nel sees the line where she ends and Sula starts, whereas Sula sees them each as a sort of continuation of the other.

The omniscient narrator also plays a key role in the scene of Plum's death. We see what is going on through several perspectives. The narrator gives us very basic detail, describing Eva's visit to her son and finding him in a drug induced haze. Then we are taken into Eva's thoughts and memories of her son as a child and shown her pain as she sees her son falling victim to addiction. After that, we learn Plum's thoughts and feelings as the kerosene is being poured over him. He finds it comforting, as if she is saving him. Plum thinks of the kerosene as "some kind of baptism, some kind of blessing" (47). Seeing Eva's guilt and Plum's comfort gives the audience a different perspective of something that would ordinarily be considered wrong. Eva clearly loves Plum, and the point where we hear his thoughts serves to turn his murder into an act of love. He is not afraid at all, in fact, he is in a state of "snug delight" (47). If not for his perspective, the audience would most definitely have come to the conclusion that Eva did something evil. However, the style of narration causes the reader to see ambiguity and complexity, ultimately forcing the audience to come to their own conclusions.

Third person narration in Sula plays a key role in creating sympathetic characters and allowing the audience to judge right and wrong for themselves.  An omniscient narrator allows the audience to know the thoughts and ideas of characters in order to better understand their motivations as well as the complexity of the situations they find themselves in. These characters are faced with incredibly difficult situations and are forced to find ways to deal with them, sometimes in ways that may seem morally wrong. But through the style of narration, Morrison forces the audience to look at the situations from all perspectives and ultimately decide whether the way characters acted was right or wrong. 

Simon's Point of View

The Bone People, by Keri Hulme, is written in an all knowing omniscient third person point of view. Hulme gives the thoughts, feelings, actions, and conversations of all characters, but focuses mainly on Kerewin Holmes, Joseph Gillayley, and Simon Gillayley. Even with the narrower group of characters, Simon’s point of view is the least given throughout the novel. Simon is not solely concentrated on until the end of the novel. Simon’s perspective would be an interesting twist because he’s watching Kerewin and Joe as well as observing everything as a mute. If Hulme had used Simon’s point of view more, the reader would have a deeper insight into his mind along with Kerewin and Joe’s relationship.

The novel begins with Kerewin catching Simon scaling her building and is about how Kerewin feels in response. If the novel had began with Simon leaving his house and finding Kerewin’s tower, the reader would have a whole other background. There must have been a reason Simon left school and was curious enough to up Kerewin’s house. Also the mystery behind Simon’s impaled foot would be solved, besides just knowing that Kerewin thinks he “jumped on something” and got wood stuck in his heel (Hulme 18). Did Simon jump on something? If so, why was he jumping and where could he have done it? These are questions only Simon could answer, but instead the reader just goes with what Kerewin believes. The limited perspective from Kerewin also presents itself when she meets Joe for the first time. Their meeting is told using only their thoughts and words, but Simon’s view could have shown more accurate facial expressions and body language that Kerewin and Joe do not recognize themselves doing.  

For the most part, Kerewin and Joe have the spotlight with viewpoint, especially when the two characters are together. Simon is given moments, such as when the three are on vacation. The reader learns that Simon enjoys himself on holiday with a familial structure. The implication is Kerewin and Joe act like parents to Simon, but it’s unknown whether Simon perceives Kerewin and Joe together like that. Do they subconsciously act as a couple would, considering they went on a holiday together? Joe and Kerewin might not see themselves doing that, but Simon could. Simon’s silent observation could have affected how the reader feels about Kerewin and Joe’s relationship.

Finally, Simon’s perspective is the most important when it comes to his relationship with Joe. Throughout the novel there are little snippets from Simon about his thoughts on Joe and abuse. Mostly, however, it is Joe and Kerewin who comment on it, which shapes the reader’s view. A perfect example is Kerewin thinking Simon will “carry his scars for life yet he doesn’t seem concerned” and the truth in the matter is a reader does not know if Simon is concerned about this (Hulme 241). The thoughts are not written. Simon’s view on his own relationship and abuse are not told. The fear he has is obvious, but that is only because Kerewin and Joe sense his fear. If Simon could have explained everything from why he did things he was not supposed to, to why he loved Joe still after being abused, and if he even believed he was being abused the novel would have had a different feel.

Simon’s point of view would have explained a lot more and changed the book, but ultimately the way Hulme wrote offered a successful mix of views to make an intriguing story. Maybe there was a purposeful mystery behind Simon and that is why he was the least concentrated on for thoughts. However, it would be interesting to see where Simon went when he was not with Kerewin or Joe such as at school and with Piri. Simon’s view could have made a thrilling novel that involves PTSD from shipwreck leading to a psychological need to be mute that ties into the process of abuse all added to the mischievous streak he seems to have.