In the Irish detective novel In the Woods by Tana French, we confront the dilemma of discerning the good from the bad almost immediately after cracking open the covers—the narrator and main character, Robert Ryan, openly admits that he “…crave[s] truth. And [he] lie[s].” (French 4) But there is more to this discernment than the mere acceptance that our narrator embellishes the occasional truth; we must be ever vigilant for clues that hint at the verisimilitude of what the narrator is saying, and we must also consider its relation to Robert’s difference from the anticlimactic (essentially, falsehood) and the irrevocable (that which is unshakeable truth). That is, the fact that in distinguishing the good from the bad, we are forced to mentally …show more content…
separate lies from truths whether we are consciously aware of it or not and do so on our own terms using our own previous perceptions of reality. Before we begin exploring truth and untruth, and the good and the bad, we must establish that in the novel the irrevocable is everything that can be backed by legitimate documentation or a sufficient number of witnesses, a sum that depends upon varying factors. The anticlimactic is essentially everything that has no real, tangible backing and is expected by the narrator to be taken at face value, sometimes in a deceptive, manipulative manner. In the text, French utilizes subtle nuances to tip off the reader that what he is reading may not be entirely factual. The first clues are woven into the language of the work itself: Robert writes in a very charming, quick-witted manner that could easily win over many a reader, and is more often than not supplying a great amount of detail—almost an excess of it. When he tells a story, there is very little approximation, something that is unusual for even those who possess an above-average memory. In knowing this, we may begin to sift the good from the bad. Rosaline’s speech is another giveaway for untruths. Her speaking pattern comes off insincere at best, and downright unnatural at worst. She only uses the word “he” when referring to the killer, almost emphatically, when many individuals would probably resort to the neutral pronoun “they.” She is also far too charming to a man who is, despite his relative youth, still much older than she is. One could say that this is a facet of her deception. French also uses a system of doubling to make verification possible in the text. In many cases, this is a documentation that a medical incident did or did not occur. But what is more worthy of our exploration is the idea that some characters mirror each other in a funhouse mirror fashion—bearing resemblance, but not identical. The most striking of these doublings is that of Damien and Robert. Robert went away to school and adopted an English accent, and did everything he could to escape his insecurity. However, try as he might, that relentless insecurity would not budge. Damien’s case is very similar—he is clearly an insecure young man, given his uncertain body language and the fact that he would not be secure enough in his resolve to not go along with his girlfriend’s plans to rape and murder a 12 year old girl. Both men are also highly unstable individuals. Robert cannot help himself when it comes to lying; Damien is a nervous wreck in front of the Robert and Cassie, and is so unstable mentally that he would kill a young girl for reasons that no sane person would call justifiable. There are also doubles between Heather and Cassie—both of them could be viewed, in the eyes of Robert, as the cliché “Damsels-in-Distress.” But more than that, they were women who desired total intimacy, something that Robert, being the deeply troubled man that he is, simply could not (or, perhaps, would not) supply. What is most interesting to me, is the fact that every reader’s perspective while reading the novel is different.
This is a main factor in how, and how well, we discern the good from the bad and has everything to do with Robert’s differentiation between the anticlimactic and the irrevocable. A part of the anticlimactic is an inability for all of the pieces to come to a single point. If one’s background is different from another’s, then the pieces will come together or fail to converge, depending. Some readers pick up right away that Rosalind is a sociopath, while others are unshakably convinced the moment that she enters the stage. If one does not have the right background, the very thing that allows us to interpret this piece of literature, one will suffer from a lessened ability to discern good from bad; true from untrue; and yes, anticlimactic from irrevocable. In conclusion, there are several means of distinguishing the untrue in In the Woods: the construction of its language, Rosalind’s speech patterns, doubling, and concrete medical documentation. What connects this to Robert’s differentiation of anticlimactic and irrevocable is mainly the fact that some readers will notice these cues, and others will not, possibly because of their dissimilar
backgrounds.
Before going to Alaska, Chris McCandless had failed to communicate with his family while on his journey; I believe this was Chris’s biggest mistake. Chris spent time with people in different parts of the nation while hitchhiking, most of them whom figured out that McCandless kept a part of him “hidden”. In chapter three, it was stated that Chris stayed with a man named Wayne Westerberg in South Dakota. Although Westerberg was not seen too often throughout the story, nevertheless he was an important character. Introducing himself as Alex, McCandless was in Westerberg’s company for quite some time: sometimes for a few days, other times for several weeks. Westerberg first realized the truth about Chris when he discovered his tax papers, which stated that “McCandless’s real name was Chris, not Alex.” Wayne further on claims that it was obvious that “something wasn’t right between him and his family” (Krakauer 18). Further in the book, Westerberg concluded with the fact that Chris had not spoken to his family “for all that time, treating them like dirt” (Krakauer 64). Westerberg concluded with the fact that during the time he spent with Chris, McCandless neither mentioned his
American Character by Colin Woodard, is a book about America’s history and the upcoming of how the United States has become. Woodard starts off first explaining what it was like when America was colonized by the New England colonists and goes onward to present-day America. A book like this should be deemed great for a political history class because of the vast amount of information it has. Although, this book is exceptionally very small for a book of such kind, Woodard loves jumping around from era to era and can leave his readers at a disarray. Claiming so, a strong and prior knowledge of the American history and its government is strongly encouraged. Historical and economic terms are also used immensely in this book, so a thesaurus and dictionary would be of great use. If those two resources aren’t of much help, a recommendation of facts found upon the Internet regarding an era of which Woodard is explaining would be helpful.
Characters: The main character in The Sign of the Beaver is Matt. Matt’s character traits are responsibility, brave, sense of humor, respectful, smart, and curious. Attean is another main character and his character traits are responsibly, brave, serious, bold, mysterious, smart, resourceful, and light on his feet. Saknis is another character; his character traits are kindness, trustworthiness, fair, respectful, and brave. Next is Attean’s grandmother. His grandmother was stubborn, strict, hateful and prejudice, she hated white people. The final character is Matt’s father his character traits are to be loving, caring, honest, and faithful.
In life, many people strive to find a person that is reliable and to separate the people that are unreliable. Unreliable can be defined as an adjective meaning not dependable. Having read through the short stories “The Tell-Tale Heart” by Edgar Allan Poe, “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and “Strawberry Spring” by Stephen King, it is reasonable to conclude that each of these stories has its own unreliable narrator. The most unreliable narrator, however, is the narrator/killer Springheel Jack from “Strawberry Spring” by Stephen King due to the narrator’s cognition problems and the violent nature of the murders.
Many times in life things are not as they seem. What may look simple on the surface may be more complicated deeper within. Countless authors of short stories go on a journey to intricately craft the ultimate revelation as well as the subtle clues meant for the readers as they attempt to figure out the complete “truth” of the story. The various authors of these stories often use different literary techniques to help uncover the revelation their main characters undergo. Through the process of carefully developing their unique characters and through point of view, both Edith Wharton and Ernest Hemingway ultimately convey the significant revelation in the short stories, “Roman Fever” and “Hills Like White Elephants” respectively. The use of these two literary techniques is essential because they provide the readers with the necessary clues to realize the ultimate revelations.
In much of The Things They Carried, stories are retold time and time again. One reason for this is the idea of keeping a story’s story-truth alive. In “Good Form,” O’Brien differentiates what he calls story-truth from happening-truth. Story-truth seems to give us a better understanding of O’Brien’s sentiment in a particular story even though the story itself may not be true at all. On the other hand, happening-truth is what actually happened in the story, but may not contain as much emotional authenticity as story-truth. According to O’Brien, story-truth is therefore truer than happening-truth. Relating back to storytelling, O’Brien retells stories continuously to maintain their sentiment and emotional value. Without this continuous repetition, this sentiment fades away and the emotional value of the story is lost.
In the saying of “Character is what you are in the dark” by Dwight Lyman Moody, can meaning many different things. One being, “you are most yourself when no one is watching”, another one also being, “dark and troubled times bring out a person's true nature”, and “your true nature is on the inside”. This quote can or cannot apply to the play of “Romeo and Juliet” by Shakespeare.
Many would argue that the main character in this book is Sir Percy Blakeney for his alter ego, the Scarlet Pimpernel whom the book is named after. However, it is the lovely Lady Blakeney who is more prominent in this story, and whose point of view is most often portrayed. Lady Blakeney was an intelligent and charismatic figure in France as an actress and famous member of society before marrying Sir Percy Blakeney and moving to England. She managed to steal his heart with her wit, charm, and boldness, all of them qualities that make the character Marguerite Blakeney what she is.
Madness is relative. The sanity of the narrator in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart is best approached from two sides. One of which are from the narrator’s point of view, and the other is a neutral perspective. This is a man who stalked another, murdered him, and covered his traces only to be harassed by his victim’s heartbeat. With the narrator’s consistent denial of his madness, his homicide and overwhelming guilt is what induced his severe paranoia and apparent insanity. However, his actions were committed through fear, while his story affected by false memory and trauma. The narrator’s experience shows how a truly traumatic event can prove to completely destroy and alter any man’s sanity.
In the movie, Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks plays the role of an intellectually challenged man who tells his hypnotizing life story while sitting on a bench at a bus stop. Gump expresses the misfortune of the private troubles and the never-ending impact on his life. The story line explores the developmental aspects, the intelligence and creativity, self and personality, as well as psychosocial cognition of this fascinating character.
...r the reader to notice the parallels between them and the differences from everyone else. He also does this so that we can see the contribution it has on the characters. The madness of each individual is not itself realistic, but the idea that death, grievance, and revenge can drive someone to do things that seem to be mad or make them do things out of their nature.
Geoffrey Chaucer is, to this day, one of the most famous Middle-English writers. His view of corrupt societies and how things "may not always be as they seem" was incredibly accurate and has even carried over its accuracy into the modern era. His writings are highly controversial and bring out the faults in the most conservative aspects of society—especially when it comes to sexism and the church. In The Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer, he speaks about 31 people going on a pilgrimage. The entire selection is heavily weighted and based on one key thing, which is how it is structured. The entire story is split up into sections which entails many to call it a "story within a story." Better yet, it is more accurately described as stories
Ellen: Well, for those of you who haven’t read The Stranger, I’ll give a brief summary of the novel so you know what we’re talking about. Meursault is the narrator and protagonist suffering isolation from himself and the rest of the world in which he lives in. The novel begins when Meursault’s “maman” dies, and when attending the funeral, he finds that he isn’t very sorrowful or concerned about conforming to the common formalities of mourning over such a significant loss. Only one day after attending the funeral of his mother, Meursault becomes involved in an affair with a woman from his work named Marie. Meursault and one of his only friends named Raymond travel to a house on the beach, belonging to a friend of Raymond’s. While walking along the beach, Meursault and Raymond come across two Arab men, one of whom is the brother of Raymond’s ex-girlfriend. After an altercation, Meursault ends up shooting the Arab brother four times, and is then imprisoned for the murder. The jury judges Meursault to be guilty of murder and is then given the death sentence. Meursault is astounded at the verdict, after never thinking of himself as a criminal. However, he deals with his death sentence just as he has dealt with his life, that being with unimportance. Meursault thinks possibly that after death his existence could be less illogical and he could be more aligned with the universe.
The main protagonist of the story, Elizabeth Bennet (nicknamed both Lizzy and Eliza), is the second daughter in the Bennet family. Second only to her elder sister in beauty, Elizabeth’s figure is said to be “light and pleasing,” with “dark eyes,” and “intelligent…expression” (24). At 20 years old, she is still creating her place in society. Known for her wit and playful nature, “Elizabeth is the soul of Pride and Prejudice, [she] reveals in her own person the very title qualities that she spots so easily” (“Pride and Prejudice”) in others. Her insightfulness often leads her to jump to conclusions and think herself above social demand. These tendencies lead her to be prejudice towards others; this is an essential characteristic of her role
For example, Pi presented the alternate story with gruesome details when he killed the cook, “His blood soothed my chapped hands. His heart was a struggle- all those tubes that connected it...It tasted delicious, far better than a turtle...he was such an evil man. Worst still, he met evil in me- selfishness, anger, ruthlessness.” (311). This quote describes the traumatic event Pi went through. The imagery revealed his dilemma by bringing attention to the corruption of Pi’s morals. Martel’s deliberate prolonged and vivid description emphasized the significance of his actions. It’s clearly shown the extent at which Pi’s morality is lost when he acknowledges the “evilness” of his actions. Pi lingers in his description, which suggests difficulty accepting that he abandoned his beliefs and values. The clarity and lack of haziness of Pi’s description suggests the reality of the situation, supporting the idea that this was the true story. This literary technique contributed to the overall novel by analyzing the reader's perspective. The evidence that supports the story with humans becomes more reliable and believable with its use of imagery. Presenting the contradicting stories in a trustworthy manner adds to the stories authenticity. The reader's choice to believe either of the two somewhat logical and illogical story, tests their own moral