In this story the narrator is not participating, just observing. You can tell by the use of various phrases, as provided in the sentence, “Listen” Victor said “My father just died. I need some money to get to Phoenix to make arrangements” (Alexie 504). The use of the vocabulary “Victor said” shows that he is not the narrator of this story, only a participant. Furthermore, I cannot find an instance where the narrator is identified as a character. Therefore, another example of this would be, “Thomas Builds-the-Fire sat on the bicycle, waited in Victor’s yard. He was ten years old and skinny” (Alexie 506). In this statement the narrator is describing Thomas. This is not coming from Thomas but about Thomas from a third party. Which reinforces my …show more content…
supposition that the narrator is a third party, not a participant. Thusly, this brings us to the reliability and the editorial omniscience of the narrator. I find the narrator to be reliable. There is no rambling text or injecting of personal opinions. Only reporting of the events, past and present with editorial comments regarding the feelings of the characters. We can see that in the text, “Thomas closed his eyes and this story came to him: “We are all given one thing by which our lives are measured, one determination. Mine are the stories which can change or not change the world. It doesn’t matter which as long as I continue to tell the stories” (Alexie 510). From this we can see that the narrator is not whitewashing the truth to make it pretty for the reader. Just giving us the raw, gritty truth with no equivocation. It is seen again when the narrator talks about going into the trailer where Victor’s father died, “Victor walked to the front door and opened it. The stink rolled out and made them both gag. Victor’s father had lain in that trailer for a week in hundred-degree temperatures before anyone found him” (Alexie 508). This detailed description of the condition of the trailer and the stench that assaulted them is real and reliable. I find the narration reliable in this story and that the words ring true. As far as editorial omniscience there are quite a few examples in this story.
When Victor is deciding how to get the money to bring his father’s body back from Phoenix. We see an example of omniscience with the lines, “Who has money on a reservation, except the cigarette and fireworks salespeople?” (Alexie 504), this shows the narrators insight and knowledge about the people on the reservation. Who has money and who does not can shows an omniscience that is not told from a character perspective but directly from the narrator? This narrator knows all including the deep dark secrets, such as in the lines, “Thomas Builds-a-Fire had known that Victor’s father was going to leave, knew it before anyone” (Alexie 505). Then when you read the lines, “Thomas Builds-a-Fire could fly. Once, he jumped off the roof of the tribal school and flapped his arms like a crazy eagle. And he flew” (Alexie 509), the narrator knew he would fly. Furthermore, in the statement, “Victor knew that Thomas would remain the crazy storyteller who talked to dogs and cars, who listened to the wind and pine trees. Victor knew he couldn’t really be friends with Thomas, even after all that had happened” (Alexie 511), is another excellent example of omniscience. Although the narrator is looking into the minds and hearts of the characters and predicting how they will act or react. Nevertheless, the narrator is just a commentator with omniscience and not a participant in the action. Consequently, I find that this story consists of a reliable, non-participant narrator, and who has editorial omniscience, which I have thoroughly enjoyed
reading.
The narrators of the story are the author Diana Alexander, and sometimes the characters, which narrates while dialogue. Alexander narrates the entire first paragraph, and her point of view in that piece is trusted, because she narrates the historical fact. The second paragraph though is from the point of view of the members of council, who is a character of the story and is also trusted. The member expressed his feelings, which should...
The point of view is considered to be omniscient third person narrative, meaning that the narrator, in this case Preston, knows everything about what will happen at future points in the book, but decides not to let the reader know it all just yet. The novel is told as if a grandfather is sharing his childhood memories to his grandchildren, where he himself knows all how it will end, but his young listeners do not.
In “This Is What It Means to Say Phoenix Arizona”, Victor has become psychologically troubled because he has put his own traditions behind. Throughout the story, the readers find out that Victor has an internal conflict due to the unhealthy relationships in his life. His father abandons him at a very young age, which causes Victor’s loss of guidance and self-identity. The day that Victor’s father abandons his family, Victor gets “really drunk and beat[s] Thomas up for no apparent reason at all”(276). If no one would have stopped Victor, Thomas-build-the-fire would have died which clearly shows the readers that Victor is mentally troubled. Not only does he lose his father but, Victor also loses his best friend on that same day. In other words, Victor is mentally traumatized after the abandonment. In fact, Rothe Eugenio, a professor in the department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Health at Florida Inter...
In “This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona,” Alexie creates a story that captures the common stereotypes of Native Americans. For instance, in the story the narrator states, “Who does have money on a reservation, except the cigarette and fireworks salespeople?” (Alexie). This quotation shows that the narrator addresses the idea that all Native Americans must own businesses that sell fireworks and/ or cigarettes in order to be successful. In this example, Victor is shown to not identify with the Native Americans because he does not pursue the same job opportunities as many Native Americans do. Victor's character is used as a contrast to the stereotypes that , there he represents reality. Another instance in which the author incorporates a stereotype about Native Americans is when Thomas-Builds-the-Fire first makes conversation with Victor. Thomas-Builds-the-Fire informs Victor about the news of Victor's ...
Victor knew he was a Native American that lived on the reservation. However, as he has grown up, it seems he has forgotten the tribal ties of the Native Americans. The people of that culture consider everyone in the tribe to be family and they are not ashamed of who they are and where they come from. Towards the end of the fictional narrative it is said, “Victor was ashamed of himself. Whatever happened to the tribal ties, the sense of community? The only real thing he shared with anybody was a bottle and broken dreams. He owed Thomas something, anything” (519). At the end of the story, Victor has finally realize that he is acting self absorbed. He realizes that this is not who he wants to be and he should not be ashamed to talk to Thomas Builds-a-Fire. Remembering his tribal ties, Victor gives half of his father 's ashes to Thomas. By doing that, Victor is thanking Thomas in his own way. Victor said, “listen, and handed Thomas the cardboard box which contained half of his father. “I want you to have this” (519). Individuals on the reservation thought Thomas was just a madman with weird stories. But in reality he was always true to his tribal identity and has even taught Victor how to get back to that. For example Thomas says, “I’m going to travel to Spokane Falls one last time and toss these ashes into the water. And your father will rise like a salmon, leap over the bridge, over me, and find his way
Compare /Contrast and describe the changes, if any, that occur with Victor as a result of this encounter with Thomas (“This is what it Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona”) and with the narrator of Carver’s “Cathedral and “Robert—the blind man.” When discussing “Cathedral,” please don’t forget to talk about the narrator’s wife, as she is crucial to the story. Consider: How does one character teach the other, and what does one learn from the other? How storytelling/art forms important in each work? How do disabilities (real or metaphorical), loss of identity, and alienation figure into each story? Marshal quotes from texts as necessary.
Every narrator has their own point of view and their own “particular” styles to reach out to the readers. A narrative point of view is the type of personal or non-personal perspective through which a story is communicated. In unrestricted (omniscient) narration, we know more, we hear more and feel more as opposed to restricted narration where we don’t know, see or hear more than the main character. Unrestricted (omniscient) narration has unrestricted access to all aspects of the story. It provides for perceptions and experiences of, all or most of the characters and it is a way of narration. It does also provides, information of the characters. The viewers see more, feel more and are able to connect with the characters.
In Sherman Alexie’s short story, “This Is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona” there are the two main characters in the story in which we follow along with on their journey and notice their change. Victor has just been laid off and found out his father has died. His character at the beginning of the story is negative, frustrated, angry, and confused. Having found out both of these things within the same week for him has given him a negative outlook. Thomas on the other hand is the storyteller on the rez that nobody wants to listen to. He is lonely, positive, but a sad life. After their journey together, Victor finds out about his dad more and builds a bond with Thomas that would have never happened had he not asked him for help in the first
This type of point of view was evident when the man’s thoughts were expressed “He closed his eyes in order to fix his last thoughts upon his wife and children.”(Bierce 863). Bierce made it obvious that omniscient was the point of view being used because he told the reader about the thoughts and feelings of the main character, Peyton Farquhar. This type of point of view is powerful in the use of this story because this story was about his illusion seeming like a reality. The narration affected the story by showing readers the blurred line between Farquhar’s illusion against his
However, when taking an indepth look, this fictional story depicts two contrary personalities overcoming their dissimilarities in order to work together. With the help of the Point of view of the story, 3rd person omniscient one can observe what Victor and Thomas think of each other. While Victor chooses to shy away from his ancestors culture, Thomas on the other hand, as previously stated, embraces his culture. For example, when Thomas sees Victor at the trading post, it states, “Thomas looked at Victor, smiled, and walked over to him”. Thomas, generally speaking, shouldn’t be speaking to Victor as we soon come to find out that the two had previously had an altercation, with Victor jumping Thomas; with the latter sustaining massive injuries and never receiving an apology. This small act of kindness exhibits the forgiving nature of Thomas in the way that, despite being nearly beaten to death by Victor, Thomas took it upon himself to take the highroad and show he is not holding a grudge. This ties back into THomas being a forgiving person, as a common Native belief is to forgive hate and anger. Native’s forgive because they believe it gives them the ability to bare peace of mind, and it can clearly be seen throughout the story that Thomas has a clear conscience. The only thing on Thomas’ mind, is the deal he made with Victor’s father; to take care of Victor. While it can be said Thomas
view the narrator is not part of the story but in the minds of the
Thomas begins her article by pointing out that the narrator never identifies his or her self. She also realized that the narrator never reveal his or her sex or which generation he or she belonged. The narrator talked about both the colonial generation and the young inhabitant. Thomas feels that the story would have been more clear if the narrator was identified and was put in a certain age group so readers could better understand what the narrator had witnessed. She also points out how the narrator used “we” in the story when talking about what the towns people had discovered, but then changes to a third person tone and used “their”.Thomas used this to make her point about harsh and unreliable judgement from the towns
The vantage point of which Franz Kafka writes this novel is narrated in two parts: first-person narration, and a third-person limited narration. The story is told by an omniscient narrator , meaning
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.
Per our reading for this class we see that there are four basic types of point of view. Omniscient is when the story is told in the third person by a narrator whose knowledge and prerogatives are unlimited (pg.236). This gives the narrator the free will to tell as much as they want about the mindsets and feelings of the characters.