- My initial reaction to this story was somewhat of a shock. As I real this short story I could recognize the irony in what the two characters were portraying but it all came as a shock to me as he used a type of minimalist structure to his writing. This type of writing had me thinking about the deeper meanings and forming the setting and intentions in my mind. The element of emotion in irony stood out to me the most. This element of surprise caused me to be wondering what point was going to be formed in each character. When this was not revealed in either, the author forced me through his writing to look into the deeper meaning that he was trying to portray. Surprisingly, and thankfully this story was not at all relating to me in things that I have dealt with recently.
- Setting was the most important element to this story. Although the author chooses to give very little details about what is going on around them, it does build a stronger picture in the readers mind to use as a foundation to what results in the heated argument. The plot is quickly formed out of the argument. We recognize that the weather that day gives us a fore shadow of the situation in doors as well. With out the setting being clearly set out in the beginning the reader would have no means as to picturing what kind of a day it already was. The simple irony of a storm brewing outside was more than enough for the reader to see the correlation of the storm brewing inside. As every bad storm brews, there is always a result of disaster that follows.
- This story is really perplexing to me. As I mentioned above, I view the most importance in the setting that was built for the story in the beginning. But my real question comes out of the fact that I didn’t see the author coming to any kind of strong-formed ideas in the plot or in the conclusion. I wonder why he was so descriptive in the first two sentences about the weather, but when it came down to sharing what happened to the baby in the end he left it open to interpretation?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
SSRJ #4 Carver
**oops I read week 4's SSRJ...I will post 3 shortly**
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also noticed how Carver used a great amount of detail in the first few paragraphs when he was describing the setting, but then became very vague towards the middle and end of the story. I think that Carver does this because he wants us to come up with our own details about the core theme and plot of the story. He sets us up with the basic setting of the story and then lets his readers use their imaginations for the remainder.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam. I think that he wants us to come up with our on conclusion. I thought the way that he was so decriptive in the beging and less decriptive towards the middle and end made the story harder to read for me , because he got my expectations up for this story then it jut went down hill for me .
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about setting being a very important part of the story. Without this description of the setting the reader would have virtually no idea about what the central point of the story really was. But I didn't really think the story was left up to the reader's interpretation. I think Carver put things like the flower pot breaking during the struggle specifically so the reader would deduce that the child suffers a similar fate. Also, if you look at how Carver describes the placement of the couples hands on the child, the strength used to pull on the child and the sheer and blind determination both parents had while fighting then it seems almost certain that the child was at least injured in the fight if not worse. Even in the last line he says, "...the issue was decided." The word decided seems to imply something was made final, as if to say you can't take it back. Those kinds of things led me to my conclusion but then again, maybe I've been watching to much cable T.V..
ReplyDelete