"I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound which shattered the flesh and bone." p. 135
Well I must say, I've spent quite a long time discussing our good friend Victor, but I've really neglected to say much about the characterization of everyone's favorite sterotypical Italian plumber. Or monster. Either way, really, I am of course speaking of Mario.
Mario starts off as a baby, essentially, as shown by the way in which he reaches out to Victor, his father figure, and slaps on a goofy baby grin. This, of course, is terrifying to Victor, but really he just wants some love. However, this initially rejection just starts a long cycle of repeated instances of Mario saying "lovemelovemelovemelovemeloveme" and everyone else just beating him with sticks. Yeowch. So he goes out into the wild, and at some point, he enters a town to talk with people, at which time he is first beaten with said sticks and run right out of town. So you'd think he'd be pretty bummed, at this point, but don't worry, Mario is still but an innocent child at heart, and he is confident that someday he'll find people who will accept him. So he decides to befriend the DeLaceys while under the impression that the decency he's observed before will make them treat him compassionately. However, one lady faints, one lady flees, and guess what Felix does! He beats him with a stick. So Mario runs off again, and now he's starting to get a little ticked, so he burns down the abandoned DeLacey cottage and takes off into the wilderness, at which time, he finds a lady drowning in the river. Now, Mario's been treated like crap thus far, so it certainly would have been expected of the big guy to just keep on walking and not help her out. But rather, he goes out of his way, saves her life, begins to resuscitate her, and how is he thanked? If you answered that he's beaten with a stick, you'd actually be wrong. Nahh, he gets shot. Poor fella. So that is essentially the last straw. Mario flips out and begins his killing spree, ultimately leading up to his murder of Elizabeth and the death of Victor, and eventually Mario himself.
So that might have seemed like a lot of plot summary, but I feel that really it's the best way to represent Mario's progression as a character. He starts off innocent like a child, but the world just hates him. However, he does not begin to give up on humanity until his encounter with the DeLaceys. But even after that, he is still a good and decent critter, not even close to being worthy of the title "monster." However, his last decent act is repaid with hatred, and he just quits. Ultimately this is the outline of his transition from a fairly human-like character to a totally brutal and bloodthirsty monster.
Showing posts with label Characterization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Characterization. Show all posts
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Frankenstein - Characterization
"Again do I vow vengeance; again do I devote thee, miserable fiend, to torture and death. Never will I give up my search until he or I perish" p. 195
Let's talk about that characterization of Frankenstein. He's a fairly dynamic character, so what exactly changes in him? Before the experiment, he is a bright, optimistic, and adventure-loving young lad. He is paralleled with Walton the explorer as a scientist venturing into the unknown. He also dearly loves his friends and family, particularly Elizabeth. Furthermore, he loves science and the art of experimentation and discovery. He concerns himself solely with the scientific aspect of his actions and not with the moral implications therein. This all gradually changes over time.
The first change occurs before the experiment actually takes place, as he begins to distance himself from his loved ones. He cuts off all contact from them and practically forgets that they even exist. Next, his love of science disappears instantly after his experiment is a success. Suddenly, he no longer cares at all about the incredible scientific breakthrough he has accomplished, and is only able to think "Oh crap, I really shouldn't have done this," which is essentially him focusing on the moral aspect of his actions. Eventually, he returns home and begins to rekindle those family connections, but even though he is physically close to them, his melancholy demeanor still distances him emotionally. However, he still seems to have that love of adventure, as shown by his admiration of nature when he goes off into the mountains on his own, shortly before he meets Mario again. Afterwards, now that Frankenstein has been forced into this new task, he has an even harder time connecting with the family he was once so close to, and his newest project cuts him off from his family and forces him to leave, thus cutting his family ties even further. Also, his love of nature and spirit of adventure is finally extinguished by the time he reaches England with Henry, who is now amazed by the beautiful landscape. Henry, who now parallels Walton, is now a foil to Victor, who no longer finds any pleasure in nature. The various things that once defined Victor have gradually been stripped away, ending finally with the climax of the entire novel, the murder of Elizabeth, his most beloved companion. His social ties have now been ultimately and irreparably severed, and the only aspect of Victor's personality, the one trait that has now surfaced in the absence of his other previous traits, is vengeance. The thirst for revenge, as encapsulated by the quote above, now defines Victor's character, and he has made the full transition from human being at the beginning to total monster by the very end.
Let's talk about that characterization of Frankenstein. He's a fairly dynamic character, so what exactly changes in him? Before the experiment, he is a bright, optimistic, and adventure-loving young lad. He is paralleled with Walton the explorer as a scientist venturing into the unknown. He also dearly loves his friends and family, particularly Elizabeth. Furthermore, he loves science and the art of experimentation and discovery. He concerns himself solely with the scientific aspect of his actions and not with the moral implications therein. This all gradually changes over time.
The first change occurs before the experiment actually takes place, as he begins to distance himself from his loved ones. He cuts off all contact from them and practically forgets that they even exist. Next, his love of science disappears instantly after his experiment is a success. Suddenly, he no longer cares at all about the incredible scientific breakthrough he has accomplished, and is only able to think "Oh crap, I really shouldn't have done this," which is essentially him focusing on the moral aspect of his actions. Eventually, he returns home and begins to rekindle those family connections, but even though he is physically close to them, his melancholy demeanor still distances him emotionally. However, he still seems to have that love of adventure, as shown by his admiration of nature when he goes off into the mountains on his own, shortly before he meets Mario again. Afterwards, now that Frankenstein has been forced into this new task, he has an even harder time connecting with the family he was once so close to, and his newest project cuts him off from his family and forces him to leave, thus cutting his family ties even further. Also, his love of nature and spirit of adventure is finally extinguished by the time he reaches England with Henry, who is now amazed by the beautiful landscape. Henry, who now parallels Walton, is now a foil to Victor, who no longer finds any pleasure in nature. The various things that once defined Victor have gradually been stripped away, ending finally with the climax of the entire novel, the murder of Elizabeth, his most beloved companion. His social ties have now been ultimately and irreparably severed, and the only aspect of Victor's personality, the one trait that has now surfaced in the absence of his other previous traits, is vengeance. The thirst for revenge, as encapsulated by the quote above, now defines Victor's character, and he has made the full transition from human being at the beginning to total monster by the very end.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Hunters in the Snow, Motion Picture Style
I liked this story, and I feel that it would make a fairly decent movie. My only fear is that people will think that I'm trying to make a live-action version of South Park. Between the wintery setting and the "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!" I'm sure that at least some people might try to draw the connection. On second thought, I think I'll work that line in there somewhere.
Plot!
Well, the thing about plot for a short story is that there just might not be enough of it. The average movie is around two hours long, which honestly is about half the time it took me to read this story once. We can't have people throwing down $9.50 for a movie that is going to last twenty minutes, now. Naturally, we'll need to beef up the story. All the major events should definitely stay in there, but I think it might help to have some back story. Start the story back a ways, show Tub during his daily life alone, and also focus on Kenny and Frank before they all actually meet together for the hunting trip. I think it would be helpful to reveal to the audience to reveal the vices of Frank and Tub early on so that we can see the effect that it really plays on their character. It will add some situational irony in there if we are aware of both of their vices before they ever actually reveal them to his friend. And hey, irony just makes any movie more entertaining.
Setting?
No, you have to keep this the same. This is called "Hunters in the Snow." It is not going to work in downtown Los Angeles, or the quiet suburbs of New Hampshire. Although here's an interesting idea: start the movie off in the city, or at least a somewhat modernized area. It'll show how everyone started off perfectly civilized in their own lives. But then, as the story progresses, I think it would be cool to have them moving off, farther away from this sense of civilization, moving out into the wild, until the final scene when they're driving down a deserted road lined by nothing but snow-covered trees. I feel that this would really reinforce and illustrate the theme of a fall from humanity to animality. Actually, I'm not entirely sure that's a word. I'm pretty sure it's a Mortal Kombat thing....
Plot!
Well, the thing about plot for a short story is that there just might not be enough of it. The average movie is around two hours long, which honestly is about half the time it took me to read this story once. We can't have people throwing down $9.50 for a movie that is going to last twenty minutes, now. Naturally, we'll need to beef up the story. All the major events should definitely stay in there, but I think it might help to have some back story. Start the story back a ways, show Tub during his daily life alone, and also focus on Kenny and Frank before they all actually meet together for the hunting trip. I think it would be helpful to reveal to the audience to reveal the vices of Frank and Tub early on so that we can see the effect that it really plays on their character. It will add some situational irony in there if we are aware of both of their vices before they ever actually reveal them to his friend. And hey, irony just makes any movie more entertaining.
Setting?
No, you have to keep this the same. This is called "Hunters in the Snow." It is not going to work in downtown Los Angeles, or the quiet suburbs of New Hampshire. Although here's an interesting idea: start the movie off in the city, or at least a somewhat modernized area. It'll show how everyone started off perfectly civilized in their own lives. But then, as the story progresses, I think it would be cool to have them moving off, farther away from this sense of civilization, moving out into the wild, until the final scene when they're driving down a deserted road lined by nothing but snow-covered trees. I feel that this would really reinforce and illustrate the theme of a fall from humanity to animality. Actually, I'm not entirely sure that's a word. I'm pretty sure it's a Mortal Kombat thing....
PointofView#
Well, the point of view may need to be tweaked. In order to make my changes to plot, the camera is simply going to have to leave Tub for a little while. In order to develop the characters of Kenny and Frank, particularly before they ever even meet up with Tub, it is going to be mandatory to split the point of view between the three of them. However, there are some things that just shouldn't be revealed. Most notable of all, I think, is probably Kenny's conversation with the elderly fellow in the house, concerning the shooting of his dog. I think that should probably remain a secret to the audience until it is revealed at the same point in the plot as it was in the story. That suddenly revelation of Kenny's true intentions is dramatic, intriguing, and central to the story as a whole, and thus should definitely not be altered.
@Characterization
Adding the many scenes at the beginning of the film, long before the main characters ever meet, should definitely help bring about the characterization of not only Frank, Tub, and Kenny, but of the many other minor characters mentioned in the story but not explicitly introduced. The interactions between Tub, Frank, and their respective wives and families, will certainly help to paint a better picture of who their characters are. In the story itself, not much is revealed about the characters, but through back story, it should be possible to round out the characters and make them seem more real. The characterization itself should serve to show how the characters begin as civilized and compassionate human beings, thus making the descent into animalistic behavior all the more dramatic and prominent.
Naturally, because I am such a fantastic movie maker, all of the changes I have added thus far should make the theme much more prevalent in the story. The theme in question, naturally is the descent from being like humans to being like animals. Frankly, I feel that it will be much easier to understand how the characters interact with each other through a deeper understanding of who they are before they ever enter the wild. Thus, this will help depict three men who are perfectly sane and functional members of society. The movie can make it much more blatant that the people are gradually losing their humanity as the story progresses. It's far easier to visualize two men leaving their friend to bleed to death in the cold when it's right up there on the silver screen than it is to do so when reading a short story. The theme will be much more prominent simply due to the fact that it is a movie. Sometimes, it is just easier to portray something like a loss of humanity through visual, non-verbal body language than it is through the written word.
Behold the Horror
Well, the point of view may need to be tweaked. In order to make my changes to plot, the camera is simply going to have to leave Tub for a little while. In order to develop the characters of Kenny and Frank, particularly before they ever even meet up with Tub, it is going to be mandatory to split the point of view between the three of them. However, there are some things that just shouldn't be revealed. Most notable of all, I think, is probably Kenny's conversation with the elderly fellow in the house, concerning the shooting of his dog. I think that should probably remain a secret to the audience until it is revealed at the same point in the plot as it was in the story. That suddenly revelation of Kenny's true intentions is dramatic, intriguing, and central to the story as a whole, and thus should definitely not be altered.
@Characterization
Adding the many scenes at the beginning of the film, long before the main characters ever meet, should definitely help bring about the characterization of not only Frank, Tub, and Kenny, but of the many other minor characters mentioned in the story but not explicitly introduced. The interactions between Tub, Frank, and their respective wives and families, will certainly help to paint a better picture of who their characters are. In the story itself, not much is revealed about the characters, but through back story, it should be possible to round out the characters and make them seem more real. The characterization itself should serve to show how the characters begin as civilized and compassionate human beings, thus making the descent into animalistic behavior all the more dramatic and prominent.
Naturally, because I am such a fantastic movie maker, all of the changes I have added thus far should make the theme much more prevalent in the story. The theme in question, naturally is the descent from being like humans to being like animals. Frankly, I feel that it will be much easier to understand how the characters interact with each other through a deeper understanding of who they are before they ever enter the wild. Thus, this will help depict three men who are perfectly sane and functional members of society. The movie can make it much more blatant that the people are gradually losing their humanity as the story progresses. It's far easier to visualize two men leaving their friend to bleed to death in the cold when it's right up there on the silver screen than it is to do so when reading a short story. The theme will be much more prominent simply due to the fact that it is a movie. Sometimes, it is just easier to portray something like a loss of humanity through visual, non-verbal body language than it is through the written word.
Behold the HorrorTuesday, November 30, 2010
Minority Report - The Super Post
I like to think that all of my posts are pretty super, actually.
Plot
The important thing about the plot of "Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick is the pace. The action of this story literally never stops. Ever. It's like if you just cut out all the dialogue of a Dragon Ball Z episode. You just get two shirtless men beating the crap out of each other for about 30 minutes. I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. John Allison Anderton has quite the day indeed. He gets accused of pre-murder, is kidnapped, gets caught in a car accident, breaks into Precrime headquarters, escapes via airship, rescues his wife from a mysterious assailant, assassinates an Army general, and jets off the planet. The plot never seems to slow down for more than a paragraph or two before it picks back up again, which ultimately sets the story's pace at roughly three times ten to the eighth meters per second. This pace has several effects. Most of all, it makes the story fun. Personally, I think stories with no action are just hard to read. I can breeze through an action-packed story easily, but stories full of dialogue and inner conflict just seem to draaaaag on. The story is also suspenseful. Because so much action keeps happening, the situation constantly changes. People Anderton (and therefore the reader) once suspected eventually become allies, and people he believed were friends ultimately become his enemies. Anderton initially suspects Witwer, declaring that "the set-up is fairly obvious....This will give Witwer a legal pretext to remove me right now," (p. 125) but then quickly shifts view Kaplan as the enemy, stating that "He can break the Precrime system" (p. 143). The conflict of the story shifts and bends throughout the story as the fast-occurring events change the situation. The conflict and antagonists are not always clearly defined, which makes the ending unpredictable and the story very entertaining.
Picture Pending.
Point of View
In this particular story, the point of view is called Third Person Limited, meaning that the story specifically follows one character, John Anderton, and the reader is able to discern his thoughts and feelings, but the thoughts and actions of other characters remain hidden. This is important because it gives the reader exactly as much information as Anderton is given, so we as readers suspect all the characters that he does, and we are equally surprised as he begins to uncover the truth. We are unable to see the intentions of any of the other characters, so when Anderton is convinced that he is being "framed--deliberately and maliciously" (p. 125) by Witwer, the reader trusts in his intuition and begins to suspect Witwer. However, once he discovers that "Fleming and his men were operation under Kaplan's orders," and that Kaplan had been "making sure they got him before the police," (page 141), the reader immediately begins to trust Witwer and suspect Kaplan. The point of view keeps the reader from seeing all the pieces of the puzzle until the very end and keeps the conclusion completely unexpected.
Picture Pending.
Characterization
There are exactly two ways in which people are characterized in this story. The first method applies only to Anderton. We see his actions and indirectly characterize him and get a feel for who he is. He is a man determined to survive, which is apparent by his response of "My safety" to the question of "which means more to you--your own personal safety or the existence of the system?" (p. 139). One would initially consider this to be selfish, as he has sentences countless people to detention camps for crimes they haven't committed yet, but when it comes down to it, he will not accept the fate for himself. However, this actually uncovers a strong sense of justice, based on his reasoning "If the system can survive only by imprisoning innocent people, then it deserves to be destroyed." (p. 139).Though he created Precrime, he would rather see it destroyed than have it imprison innocent people. He views himself as innocent, and therefore feels that if Precrime imprisons him, then the system is broken. It doesn't matter that he is the criminal in question; it only matters that an innocent man is being threatened with imprisonment. It just happens to be a coincidence that the only time he has considered a man's innocence is when he himself is in danger.
The second method of characterization is used to paint the picture of virtually every character who is not named John A. Anderton. Anderton literally tells the reader what to think about every person he meets. His opinions are the only things that we can use to understand the characters he interacts with. We immediately begin to distrust Witwer as Anderton blames him for the apparent conspiracy to kick him out and describes him to be as "Nice as a water moccasin" (p. 124). We also begin to distrust his wife as Anderton becomes completely convinced that she will betray him and "would describe [the card] in detail to Witwer" (p. 126). We also begin to trust Fleming, who rescues him from the car crash and from being arrested by the police. Anderton also begins to trust Kaplan, which is evident from Lisa's thought that "Probably Kaplan will protect you," (p. 138), so the reader starts to trust Kaplan as well. However all of these opinions of other people completely flip around as Anderton begins to uncover more of the story. He starts to trust Lisa, and eventually Witwer, and realizes that the true enemies here are Fleming and Kaplan. Ultimately, our view of the other characters depends totally on how Anderton feels about them.
Picture Pending.
Setting
Not much is really said about the setting. The main action takes place within some sort of city, and it is alluded that the rural parts outside of the city are locked in constant warfare. However, the important part of setting is not really the where but the when. This story, presumably, takes place sometime in the future, as apparent by such things as "precog mutants" and "airships," which as far as I know do not exist currently. The time period of this story is extremely important, as it would be impossible to create a story about Precrime in a time period where peering into the future is impossible. So the author creates his own slot in time and creates seemingly feasible technology which makes the story more realistic, rather than complete fantasy through fortunetelling and divination. Ultimately though, the setting just allows the plot to take place in a mildly realistic fashion and does not really add much to work as a whole. It could have taken place in Texas, and not a whole lot would have changed.
Theme
Oh boy, here it is, Le Pièce de résistance. I am fancy.
I have hereby discovered two distinct things, one more minor, and the other more major.
Let's start this show with the minor theme: the dangers of a strong, active military in times of peace. The army and the police force appear to be opposed to each other. Initially, the two act like they're working together to protect the public, as each keeps the other one in check, as noted by Anderton on page 122: "A duplicate file of cards pops out at Army GHQ. It's check and balance. They can keep their eye on us as continuously as they wish." The two look like they're working together, but eventually, the Army attempts to undercut the police force in a sneaky power grab, as the Army tries to discredit the concept of Precrime and dissolve the police force. The story shows just how quickly and subtly a standing Army can take over a state under the pretext of protecting the public.
The more major theme is actually a very common one, particularly amongst stories concerning things like precognition or time travel. This, of course, is the existence of free will. The concept of Precrime is based on the fact that once a person is deemed guilty of future-murder, then that person has ultimately already made the decision. Thus, the police force interferes, and actively prevents the would-be criminal from making this decision before they ever actually make it. But if that concept holds true, then does anyone really have free will? Apparently, the precogs are able to see into the future and see the decisions that somebody is going to make, implying that the future is set in stone. However, this concept is superseded by the idea that once a person becomes aware of future events, they are capable of changing the future before it happens. This also ties into the theory of Precrime in that once the police force becomes aware of the future, they are able to prevent these future events. But then this would imply that the only way that a person can have free will and the ability to control their own destiny is to be able to become aware of the future and actively prevent the events that have been predicted. This is evident from the fact that Anderton became aware of the future and thus was able to actively choose not to kill Kaplan, and then became aware of the minority report and actively chose to kill him anyway, but under different circumstances. Anderton apparently believes this as in the last few lines he notes that "My case was unique, since I had access to the data." He asserts that the only way a person can change the future is by becoming aware of the future. Otherwise, free will does not exist.
But outside of the context of the story, in this normal world where the future is completely and utterly unknown, does free will exist? Who cares? Batman is riding Superman.
Plot
The important thing about the plot of "Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick is the pace. The action of this story literally never stops. Ever. It's like if you just cut out all the dialogue of a Dragon Ball Z episode. You just get two shirtless men beating the crap out of each other for about 30 minutes. I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. John Allison Anderton has quite the day indeed. He gets accused of pre-murder, is kidnapped, gets caught in a car accident, breaks into Precrime headquarters, escapes via airship, rescues his wife from a mysterious assailant, assassinates an Army general, and jets off the planet. The plot never seems to slow down for more than a paragraph or two before it picks back up again, which ultimately sets the story's pace at roughly three times ten to the eighth meters per second. This pace has several effects. Most of all, it makes the story fun. Personally, I think stories with no action are just hard to read. I can breeze through an action-packed story easily, but stories full of dialogue and inner conflict just seem to draaaaag on. The story is also suspenseful. Because so much action keeps happening, the situation constantly changes. People Anderton (and therefore the reader) once suspected eventually become allies, and people he believed were friends ultimately become his enemies. Anderton initially suspects Witwer, declaring that "the set-up is fairly obvious....This will give Witwer a legal pretext to remove me right now," (p. 125) but then quickly shifts view Kaplan as the enemy, stating that "He can break the Precrime system" (p. 143). The conflict of the story shifts and bends throughout the story as the fast-occurring events change the situation. The conflict and antagonists are not always clearly defined, which makes the ending unpredictable and the story very entertaining.
Picture Pending.
Point of View
In this particular story, the point of view is called Third Person Limited, meaning that the story specifically follows one character, John Anderton, and the reader is able to discern his thoughts and feelings, but the thoughts and actions of other characters remain hidden. This is important because it gives the reader exactly as much information as Anderton is given, so we as readers suspect all the characters that he does, and we are equally surprised as he begins to uncover the truth. We are unable to see the intentions of any of the other characters, so when Anderton is convinced that he is being "framed--deliberately and maliciously" (p. 125) by Witwer, the reader trusts in his intuition and begins to suspect Witwer. However, once he discovers that "Fleming and his men were operation under Kaplan's orders," and that Kaplan had been "making sure they got him before the police," (page 141), the reader immediately begins to trust Witwer and suspect Kaplan. The point of view keeps the reader from seeing all the pieces of the puzzle until the very end and keeps the conclusion completely unexpected.
Picture Pending.
Characterization
There are exactly two ways in which people are characterized in this story. The first method applies only to Anderton. We see his actions and indirectly characterize him and get a feel for who he is. He is a man determined to survive, which is apparent by his response of "My safety" to the question of "which means more to you--your own personal safety or the existence of the system?" (p. 139). One would initially consider this to be selfish, as he has sentences countless people to detention camps for crimes they haven't committed yet, but when it comes down to it, he will not accept the fate for himself. However, this actually uncovers a strong sense of justice, based on his reasoning "If the system can survive only by imprisoning innocent people, then it deserves to be destroyed." (p. 139).Though he created Precrime, he would rather see it destroyed than have it imprison innocent people. He views himself as innocent, and therefore feels that if Precrime imprisons him, then the system is broken. It doesn't matter that he is the criminal in question; it only matters that an innocent man is being threatened with imprisonment. It just happens to be a coincidence that the only time he has considered a man's innocence is when he himself is in danger.
The second method of characterization is used to paint the picture of virtually every character who is not named John A. Anderton. Anderton literally tells the reader what to think about every person he meets. His opinions are the only things that we can use to understand the characters he interacts with. We immediately begin to distrust Witwer as Anderton blames him for the apparent conspiracy to kick him out and describes him to be as "Nice as a water moccasin" (p. 124). We also begin to distrust his wife as Anderton becomes completely convinced that she will betray him and "would describe [the card] in detail to Witwer" (p. 126). We also begin to trust Fleming, who rescues him from the car crash and from being arrested by the police. Anderton also begins to trust Kaplan, which is evident from Lisa's thought that "Probably Kaplan will protect you," (p. 138), so the reader starts to trust Kaplan as well. However all of these opinions of other people completely flip around as Anderton begins to uncover more of the story. He starts to trust Lisa, and eventually Witwer, and realizes that the true enemies here are Fleming and Kaplan. Ultimately, our view of the other characters depends totally on how Anderton feels about them.
Picture Pending.
Setting
Not much is really said about the setting. The main action takes place within some sort of city, and it is alluded that the rural parts outside of the city are locked in constant warfare. However, the important part of setting is not really the where but the when. This story, presumably, takes place sometime in the future, as apparent by such things as "precog mutants" and "airships," which as far as I know do not exist currently. The time period of this story is extremely important, as it would be impossible to create a story about Precrime in a time period where peering into the future is impossible. So the author creates his own slot in time and creates seemingly feasible technology which makes the story more realistic, rather than complete fantasy through fortunetelling and divination. Ultimately though, the setting just allows the plot to take place in a mildly realistic fashion and does not really add much to work as a whole. It could have taken place in Texas, and not a whole lot would have changed.
Theme
Oh boy, here it is, Le Pièce de résistance. I am fancy.
I have hereby discovered two distinct things, one more minor, and the other more major.
Let's start this show with the minor theme: the dangers of a strong, active military in times of peace. The army and the police force appear to be opposed to each other. Initially, the two act like they're working together to protect the public, as each keeps the other one in check, as noted by Anderton on page 122: "A duplicate file of cards pops out at Army GHQ. It's check and balance. They can keep their eye on us as continuously as they wish." The two look like they're working together, but eventually, the Army attempts to undercut the police force in a sneaky power grab, as the Army tries to discredit the concept of Precrime and dissolve the police force. The story shows just how quickly and subtly a standing Army can take over a state under the pretext of protecting the public.
The more major theme is actually a very common one, particularly amongst stories concerning things like precognition or time travel. This, of course, is the existence of free will. The concept of Precrime is based on the fact that once a person is deemed guilty of future-murder, then that person has ultimately already made the decision. Thus, the police force interferes, and actively prevents the would-be criminal from making this decision before they ever actually make it. But if that concept holds true, then does anyone really have free will? Apparently, the precogs are able to see into the future and see the decisions that somebody is going to make, implying that the future is set in stone. However, this concept is superseded by the idea that once a person becomes aware of future events, they are capable of changing the future before it happens. This also ties into the theory of Precrime in that once the police force becomes aware of the future, they are able to prevent these future events. But then this would imply that the only way that a person can have free will and the ability to control their own destiny is to be able to become aware of the future and actively prevent the events that have been predicted. This is evident from the fact that Anderton became aware of the future and thus was able to actively choose not to kill Kaplan, and then became aware of the minority report and actively chose to kill him anyway, but under different circumstances. Anderton apparently believes this as in the last few lines he notes that "My case was unique, since I had access to the data." He asserts that the only way a person can change the future is by becoming aware of the future. Otherwise, free will does not exist.
But outside of the context of the story, in this normal world where the future is completely and utterly unknown, does free will exist? Who cares? Batman is riding Superman.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Characterization
This post will analyze the various methods of characterization and types of characters depicted in all three stories.
"Everyday Use" employs a combination of Indirect and Direct Characterization. The narrator implies through their opinions that Dee is fairly uppity. This character image is developed indirectly later on when Dee is actually introduced in the story. The reader then gets the feeling that she is fairly bossy and condescending, not very accustomed to getting her own way. Ultimately, Dee is just a flat, static character. She starts off hurtful and condescending and ends that way as well.
"Hunters in the Snow" relies completely on Indirect Characterization. The story is all told focusing on Tub, but we do not hear his thoughts or feelings towards the other characters. Everything that we know about the characters comes through indirectly reading them. All three of the characters seem to be fairly round. Kenny appears to be rude, angry, and mentally unstable, but he also shows various signs of compassion and understanding. Tub appears to be a stereotypical fat guy who takes the brunt of his friends jokes, but he breaks the stereotype in that he does not grow to resent them but actually deepens his friendship with Frank, showing his trust in him and his deep care for his friends (as long as their name isn't Kenny). Frank appears to be a bit of a crappy friend and mildly unintelligent, but he also shows a tendency to prattle off sagely wisdom about love and friendship. Ultimately, though, all of the characters are static. They do not undergo some great change that suddenly makes them compassionate or understanding or wise. They simply always were. The only one who undergoes a dramatic change is Kenny. Because he's dead.
"Bartleby the Scrivener," on the exact opposite end, relies almost entirely on Direct Characterization. The narrator goes on for pages describing the exact nature of each character. Very little requires actual inference on the part of the reader. All of the characters are fairly flat. Nippers has indigestion; Ginger Nut is a messengerboy; Turkey is a drunk. The most intriguing character is Bartleby, but ultimately he is not actually developed much at all. He is only interesting because he is so simple, yet this simplicity makes him seem strange. A real person does not act as one-dimensionally as Bartleby does. He appears to undergo a change throughout the story, but really this change is just a progression from mild depression to severe depression. He avoids human interaction, then he quits work, then he quits eating. So he undergoes a change...but not really.
These are ginger nuts, apparently
"Everyday Use" employs a combination of Indirect and Direct Characterization. The narrator implies through their opinions that Dee is fairly uppity. This character image is developed indirectly later on when Dee is actually introduced in the story. The reader then gets the feeling that she is fairly bossy and condescending, not very accustomed to getting her own way. Ultimately, Dee is just a flat, static character. She starts off hurtful and condescending and ends that way as well.
"Hunters in the Snow" relies completely on Indirect Characterization. The story is all told focusing on Tub, but we do not hear his thoughts or feelings towards the other characters. Everything that we know about the characters comes through indirectly reading them. All three of the characters seem to be fairly round. Kenny appears to be rude, angry, and mentally unstable, but he also shows various signs of compassion and understanding. Tub appears to be a stereotypical fat guy who takes the brunt of his friends jokes, but he breaks the stereotype in that he does not grow to resent them but actually deepens his friendship with Frank, showing his trust in him and his deep care for his friends (as long as their name isn't Kenny). Frank appears to be a bit of a crappy friend and mildly unintelligent, but he also shows a tendency to prattle off sagely wisdom about love and friendship. Ultimately, though, all of the characters are static. They do not undergo some great change that suddenly makes them compassionate or understanding or wise. They simply always were. The only one who undergoes a dramatic change is Kenny. Because he's dead.
"Bartleby the Scrivener," on the exact opposite end, relies almost entirely on Direct Characterization. The narrator goes on for pages describing the exact nature of each character. Very little requires actual inference on the part of the reader. All of the characters are fairly flat. Nippers has indigestion; Ginger Nut is a messengerboy; Turkey is a drunk. The most intriguing character is Bartleby, but ultimately he is not actually developed much at all. He is only interesting because he is so simple, yet this simplicity makes him seem strange. A real person does not act as one-dimensionally as Bartleby does. He appears to undergo a change throughout the story, but really this change is just a progression from mild depression to severe depression. He avoids human interaction, then he quits work, then he quits eating. So he undergoes a change...but not really.
These are ginger nuts, apparentlyHunters in the Snow
While reading this story, all I could think about was "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!" Naturally Tub was Cartman, and I got a very Stan-ish vibe from Frank.
I shall now address question 3: "How do plot and characterization work together in this story?" The first fun plot twist is Kenny's little shooting spree. He shoots a post, a tree, a dog, and appears to be considering shooting Tub as well. This gives the character the sense that Kenny is a bit of a jerk, one who makes rash decisions, and is not quite entirely mentally stable. Tub is also developed in that he decides it is a much safer decision to shoot his friend than to use words or step out of the line of fire. Tub apparently lacks trust and thinks very little of his friends, at this point apparently.
Next up in the plotline, it is revealed that the farmer fellow asked Kenny to shoot the dog, apparently, which actually changes Kenny's image from crazy gun nut to quasi-compassionate gun nut. Tub now appears to be the slightly crazy one. Obviously Kenny wasn't really going to shoot him, I mean obviously. At least that's how it appears to the reader.
Also, Frank and Tub have some Man Talk male bonding time in the bar and the roadhouse. Frank declares that he is in love with a 15 year old girl. I'll just go ahead and say that this little plot twist alone just makes Frank seem awkward. Maybe the author is just trying to say something adorable like "love is blind," blah blah blah, love can still tell age. Tub also has a little spill-the-guts session, and declares that his obesity problem is not actually glandular, but that he actually just eats too much. Shocker. This development leads to a knew side of Tub, not that he doesn't like being fat, but that he just doesn't care for being dishonest.
However, all of these little character development moments in the plot pale in comparison to the overall plot as a whole: Frank and Tub go to a bar and eat pancakes while their friend is dying in the backseat of the truck. And also cold.
According to Kenny, these cure gunshot wounds.
I shall now address question 3: "How do plot and characterization work together in this story?" The first fun plot twist is Kenny's little shooting spree. He shoots a post, a tree, a dog, and appears to be considering shooting Tub as well. This gives the character the sense that Kenny is a bit of a jerk, one who makes rash decisions, and is not quite entirely mentally stable. Tub is also developed in that he decides it is a much safer decision to shoot his friend than to use words or step out of the line of fire. Tub apparently lacks trust and thinks very little of his friends, at this point apparently.
Next up in the plotline, it is revealed that the farmer fellow asked Kenny to shoot the dog, apparently, which actually changes Kenny's image from crazy gun nut to quasi-compassionate gun nut. Tub now appears to be the slightly crazy one. Obviously Kenny wasn't really going to shoot him, I mean obviously. At least that's how it appears to the reader.
Also, Frank and Tub have some Man Talk male bonding time in the bar and the roadhouse. Frank declares that he is in love with a 15 year old girl. I'll just go ahead and say that this little plot twist alone just makes Frank seem awkward. Maybe the author is just trying to say something adorable like "love is blind," blah blah blah, love can still tell age. Tub also has a little spill-the-guts session, and declares that his obesity problem is not actually glandular, but that he actually just eats too much. Shocker. This development leads to a knew side of Tub, not that he doesn't like being fat, but that he just doesn't care for being dishonest.
However, all of these little character development moments in the plot pale in comparison to the overall plot as a whole: Frank and Tub go to a bar and eat pancakes while their friend is dying in the backseat of the truck. And also cold.
According to Kenny, these cure gunshot wounds.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Seventeen - Was There?
"'Was there?' said Bill" (p. 208). That's right, Bill good buddy, a fellow died. I find this interesting. A person gets gored in the street, and, except for a single waiter, nobody really seems to care. The festival goes on, and everyone gets really really hammered, just like they did yesterday. It seems quite similar to Cohn, actually. He suffers a severe mental breakdown and probably goes slightly insane, and the general response from most of his so-called friends is essentially "don't let the door hit ya on your way out." I declare this to be an analogy. Crowd is to dead guy as Friends are to Cohn. woo. Next up we have Brett, destroyer of men. Is that an epithet? hoo hoo, look at me go. Anyway, it appears that every man that Brett comes into contact with suffers emasculation, depression, night sweats, uncontrollable laughing, and indigestion. Those last three were made up. However, there is a bit of a recurring theme here that every guy that chases after Brett just ends up worse off than when they started. Jake abandons his values in order to chase that tail, Cohn punches out his friends, Mike becomes a straight up jerk (although that probably would have happened either way), and eventually Romero will probably burst into flames. Poor chap. At least, his livelihood will go down the tubes. Anyway, we gain some handy insight into why Brett lives her life how she does. Frankly, Hemingway, I think it's a little late in the game to be throwing out character development. Try to get that done on the other side of the climax next time, kaythx. Oh that reminds me, I've decided that Cohn's hissy fit is the climax of this tale. Don't worry, I have reasoning. This whole novel, people have been ripping on Cohn. Even as a young lad, I'm sure the boys at Princeton called him "Connie" and ran his skivvies up the flag pole. So we've got this sense of building tension all the way up through the novel. However! because of Cohn's gentlemanly and old-fashioned chivalrous nature, he just takes it, over and over. So there's this building tension, and therefore sort of rising action that seems to push the plot along. And then BOOM chapter 17, he just snaps and beats Jake straight into unconsciousness. He gets pushed over the edge, and the climax happens. However, his brutal pwnage of Jake doesn't just serve as a plot device. It's also symbolic of the fall of his old-school morals. A gentleman does not just cave his buddy's face in. By showing Cohn abandon his values for violence, Hemingway is showing the shift from the old prewar morals and values of gentlemanlinessicity for getting drunk and having fights. This is the way of the Lost Generation, he is saying. Cohn's way is outdated. He recognizes this, and tries to salvage it with a handshake, but ultimately, the Lost Generation just ends up laughing at this pathetic attempt to salvage his honor.
These are boxers up a flagpole. "Connie" is inscribed on the wasteband. Kids can be so cruel.
These are boxers up a flagpole. "Connie" is inscribed on the wasteband. Kids can be so cruel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)