What’s up with all This Judging
“Bullet in the Brian” by Tobias Wolff is about a book critic Anders, who, while waiting in a line at the bank, has been listening to two women in front of him talk very loudly -- a simple conversation that turns into bickering between him and both these women. At this point everyone’s attention goes to the door; two guys wearing ski masks are standing at the door. Well, as expected Anders couldn’t keep his mouth shut. One of the men, standing at the door, gives him a warning; Anders started to talk again and was shot in the brain. While he lays there dying, he is experiencing flashbacks. He does not remember some, but one flashback, in particular, he remembers clearly. A memory of his younger days, of him playing
…show more content…
In the beginning, the story is told in the minor character’s point of view. Limited information is given about Anders. The readers are not informed of his age, his educational background, profession, etc. Although the author expressed that he is a critic, it is not established where he works or what his status is in life. Limiting information is a way to engage the readers in reading as they inquire about the background of the main character. The angle of narration thus helps to make the story more interesting and mysterious. As the bullet hits the brain, the point of view shifts to the novelist’s point of view or the omniscient angle which sees everything, including the bullet in the brain, the past experiences that Anders set aside in his memory and the reminiscences of childhood when he played with his cousins. The omniscient viewpoint works to provide the readers what they ought to know, which facial reaction or dialogues alone could fail to show.
Three paragraphs have been rewritten presenting the first-person point of view. I did not remember Professor Josephs telling the class how Athenian prisoners in Sicily had been released if they could recite Aeschylus, and then quoting Aeschylus myself, right there, in Greek. Anders does not remember how his eyes burned at those sounds. I did not remember the surprise of seeing a college classmate’s name on the jacket of a novel not long after we graduated or the respect I had felt after reading the book. I did not remember the pleasure of giving
A character that was admirable in the novel “we all fall down” is John. John is the father of Will who is the main character, they spend nearly the entire story together looking for a way out of the world trade center during the 9/11 attacks. During the story you learn that John is very smart, brave, and respected. These are all characteristics which play a crucial role in saving lives such as his co-workers and a random lady they find on the way named ting, but mainly in the ending John and Will successfully escape.
Everything is criticized at every level in this story, the people by the main character, the main character by the author and even the story by the author as well. The cruel egoistic personality of Anders is definitely identifiable through these different levels of criticism. I will prove that the inner motivation of this behaviour derives from Anders' egoistic personality which sometimes makes him cruel against others, sometimes against himself. Furthermore, I will prove that whenever Anders criticizes somebody or something he actually tries to punish because of the imperfectness of the object. In order to make the referring to the different part of the story easier I divide it into three parts. The first part ends when the robbers appear at the door of the bank, the second ends when one of the robbers shoots at Anders and the left is the third part.
Utilizing effective diction is key as Welty to put together the mosaic of memories that illustrates the intense presence of reading in her life. Her use of diction pulls the reader into the scenes, it makes them real. When she describe the library the wording allows to hear “the steady seething of the electric fan”, the harsh tone of the librarian’s “normal commanding
Meyer, Michael, ed. The Bedford Introduction to Literature: Reading, Thinking, Writing. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1999.
In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game”, there are two main characters, Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff. The story starts off with Rainsford and Rainsford’s hunting partner, Whitney, on a yacht heading to Rio de Janiero to hunt big game animals. Rainsford ends up becoming trapped on Ship-Trap Island, and that is where he and the reader are introduced to General Zaroff. Unfortunately for Rainsford, General Zaroff is not your normal General. General Zaroff and Rainsford are similar and different in many ways, and even though Rainsford believes that Zaroff is a sick individual, at the end of the story he becomes more like Zaroff than he realizes.
Richard Connells “The Most Dangerous Game” is a short story which illustrates that calm analytical thinking can increase your odds of survival and controlling panic.
In the novel The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton a teenage boy named Ponyboy lives with his two older brothers named Soda and Darry, and there is some controversy on whether or not his brothers are able to take proper care of Ponyboy. All three of the brothers are apart of the neighborhood gang called “The Greasers”, which is more like a brotherhood of underprivileged boys that have eachother’s backs rather than a gang. Ponyboy finds himself involved with the murder of an egotistical “Soc” named Bob, and is at risk of being taken away from his family and friends. Ponyboy should be able to stay with his brothers, because he is a well-rounded student that obeys the law for the most part, and his brothers are able to provide financial and emotional
Johnson uses third person omniscient to create important view points from different characters. He is in the minds of all of the characters. This also helps the novella flow from one person perspective to the next, and the reader can move through the novella from one time period to the next quickly. This is important to the story because Johnson uses many plot lines to navigate through his novella, and his writing strategy helps develop irony throughout the story. After Grainier describes the Hobo, “He was bearded and streaked with dust, and bits of the woods clung to him everywhere,” (30) the reader engages the story through the eyes of William Coswell, the hobo along the river: “That’s right, I have been cut behind my knee and I have to say, I know he killed me” (31). The reader is engaged by Grainier’s description of William Coswell, but the reader also learns how the Hobo got in his predicament without the single view of Grainier. Grainier never told anyone about the Hobo along the river. This was the cruel irony Grainier thought the Hobo deserved. Johnson writing perspective also helps the reader empathize with Peterson when he was talking with Grainier about how his own dog shot him. After Grainier asked Peterson multiple times how a dog could shoot a person, Peterson tell his story. “My dog shot me in self-defense. He knew I had his end in mind.” By writing in third person omniscient the
As the narrator of this novel, death’s point of view allows the reader to understand each characters thoughts and feelings from an outside perspective as they struggle living in the time period of World War II.
Having Christopher narrating the book in first person is important because it is easier for the reader to understand his written account of the murder of Mr. and Mrs. Sheers dog (Wellington); A step by step investigation is projected and shown to the reader when narrated in first person.
Since the story was written in the third person objective, it is easier for the reader to remain objective while analyzing the story. If we one were to hear the story from on of the character’s point of view, the retelling of the story would be clouded with various em...
Novels for Students. Presenting Analysis, Context and Criticism on Commonly Studied Novels. Detroit, MI: Gale Group, 1999. Print.
By using the third person omniscient point of view, the narrator is able to render the characters with information related both from direct description and from the other character's revelations. This way, the description remains unbiased, but at the same time coherent with how the various characters see it. For example, after the narrator tells us that "He was an only child, eleven years old. She was a widow. She was determined to be neither possessive nor lacking in devotion.", we are able to understand why the boy is so emotionally attached to his mother and, at the beginning, unwilling to ask her for permission to go to his beach and, later in the story, unwilling to let her know about his adventure through the tunnel. This also explains why the mother let him go without questions, even if she was very worried about him.
The narrator of the story is non-omniscient, but also limited because we, as readers, do not know anything about the other people in the story’s thoughts, and this results in us sympathizing with Mike.