The short story: “Wood Grouse on a High Promontory Overlooking Canada”, published in 1996 by David Guterson, is set among mountains at the border between America and Canada. It evolves about two brothers, who are on a backpacking trip together: the little brother is fifteen years and called ‘’Bud’’, short for buddy, by his older Brother, whom is named Gary. However, the two brothers are extremely unalike: while Bud wants to leave the country; Gary has just come back from the Vietnam War and seems to be particularly glad to be back as he has traumatizing experiences on his conscience. Therefore, you can also tell that the story takes place a long time ago, probably after the end of the Vietnam war in 1975. The setting as well as the dialogues and actions taken by the characters create a conflicting atmosphere: it is said to be beautiful from up there among the mountains. Ironically, at the same time an ugly incident takes place: the killing of a wood grouse. Similarly negatively, Gary exposes crying and sadness, which support that the atmosphere is inconsistent and blurry. In addition, Gary keeps his experiences in war hidden from Bud even though Bud seems interested: ‘’That day …show more content…
Moreover, whenever Bud thinks or feels something, the story is written in the past: ‘’I picked up a stone’’, while the quotations are written in the presence. Furthermore, future present is also used. Once again, our understanding is challenged as all three tenses are used. The narrator seems reliable as nobody can speak against his own interpretations. However, bewildering moments, where he cannot explain himself such as the wood grouse killing, occurs. As a result, it figures as an indication that something is up – and we question ourselves: why can he not explain himself in that particular situation? That we will now look
Gary describes what he does when his parents leave to work, background on his house, and designation on the Buddha that his uncle had brought back from the Korean War. In the quote on page 4, Gary Soto relates the busy street of Van Ness with phrases like “bluish with diesels and large sedans,” and he explains it as the Buddha is actually alive and listening Gary talk to him. This clearly helps visualize how the avenue is looking like in my mind as if the mind were the real street. Also, the metaphor that he uses in “the grind of gears hurting the air” seems like the real gears hurting the air, and this authorizes the reader to focus more on the settings by how he describes in the land of Fresno, his hometown. Moreover, he gives the meaning to the readers that how diesels and large sedans hurt the environment on the street that he lived on.The setting can really be critical to the story by changing the rhythm and how it will affect the story later
Often, when a story is told, it follows the events of the protagonist. It is told in a way that justifies the reasons and emotions behind the protagonist actions and reactions. While listening to the story being cited, one tends to forget about the other side of the story, about the antagonist motivations, about all the reasons that justify the antagonist actions.
In the first lines of “The Tell-Tale Heart”, the reader can tell that narrator is crazy, however the narrator claims the he is not crazy and is very much sane, because how could a crazy person come up with such a good plan. “How, then, am I mad? Hearken! And observer how healthily – how calmly I can tell you the whole story,” (Poe 74). The reader can see from this quote that narrator is claiming that he is not insane because he can tell anyone what happened without having a mental breakdown or any other problems that people associate with crazy people. This is the begging of the unreliability of the narrator. Here the reader is merely questioning the amount of details. The narrator then goes on to explain how he didn’t hate the old man but he hated his eye.
*the narrator is looking back on what he has once witnessed long ago, and it's haunting him, makes him feel guilty and ashamed.
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.
The tone is set in this chapter as Krakauer uses words to create an atmosphere of worry, fear, and happiness in McCandless’s mind. “The bush is an unforgiving place, however, that cares nothing for hope or longing”(4). McCandless is on the path of death, which creates worry and fear for the young boy. “He was determined. Real gung ho. The word that comes to mind is excited,” (6). Alex is very excited and care free, which Krakauer used to his advantage in making the tone of Alex’s mind happy. The author creates tones to make the reader feel the moment as if the readers were sitting there themselves. Krakauer uses dialogue and setting to create the mixed tones of this chapter. As one can see from the quotes and scenery the author uses tones that are blunt and are to the point to make the reader feel as though the emotions are their own. Krakauer uses plenty of figurative language in this chapter. He uses figurative language to support his ideas,to express the surroundings, and tone around the character. To start the chapter he uses a simile describing the landscape of the area, “…sprawls across the flats like a rumpled blanket on an unmade bed,” (9). This statement is used to make reader sense the area and set the mood for the chapter. The use of figurative language in this chapter is to make a visual representation in the readers mind. “It’s satellites surrender to the low Kantishna plain” (9).
Some scholars argue that the narrator’s actions are not propelled by perversity, but rather his actions are propelled by alcoholism. Alcoholism answers some questions as to why the narrator commits his actions; however, it is still unclear as to what first drove him to alcoholism. Joseph Stark further disproves alcoholism as an acceptable answer behind the narrator’s actions, “the two murders (of cat and wife) occurred while he was sober. Only the gouging of the cat’s eye happened while he was drunk (qtd. in Piacentino, footnote 9). Hence, though alcohol may have been a contributing factor to his crime it cannot be described as the ultimate cause” (260). Furthermore, I argue that the narrator’s perversity is initially why the narrator becomes an alcoholic. Perversity is the only answer that can be given to explain each action the narrator commits.
Carver progresses the narrator’s tone throughout the story, from disdainful to cautious to introspective by developing his relationship with Robert, and forcing them to interact with each other, to express that false presumptions about strangers, based on someone else’s experience or stories, can be misleading.
Not every story we hear is real nor what it seems. A person could calmly and accurately relate a story without an ounce of reality to it or exaggerate facts to make it more fantastic. Before agreeing to a story’s credibility, it is vital that you observe the tone, gestures, and the conviction with which the storyteller is relating the story. It is the reader’s responsibility to distinguish between facts and fiction and realize that, although a story was told in perfect detail does not mean the event was real. A reliable storyteller should be able to give details with clarity and transparency. Being consistent and rational are but few of the characteristics that would give away a reliable story.
Firstly, at the end of this story, the narrator’s illusions are the most powerful pieces of evidence for his madness. It is his two illusions that betrays him and imposed him to confess the crime. His first illusion is the beating of the old man’s heart which actually did not exist. Initialy, exactly as he portrayed "My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears, it continued and became more distinct", the ringing he heard haunted him ceaselessly. Then he "found that the noise was not within his ear", and thought the fancy in his ear was the beating of old man’s heart. Because of the increasing noise, he thought the officers must hear it, too. However, in fact, everything he heard is absurd and illusive. And it proves that the narrator is really insane. Next, his second illusion is the officers’ "hypocritical smiles" which pushed him to completely be out of control. Losting of his mind, he called the officer "Villains". Apparently, he was confused and falsely thought "they were making a mockery of his horror" which irritated him intensively. Consequently, he told all the truth and "admitted the deed" in order to get rid of the growing noise. Therefore, the above two pieces of evidence both reveal the truth that the narrator is absolutely insane in contrary to what the narrator tried to tell us.
...arly shows that the narrator is insane because he heard noises, which could not possibly have occurred. As the police officers were sitting and talking in the old man's chamber, the narrator becomes paranoid that the officers suspect him of murder. The narrator says, "I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die". The narrator is deluded in thinking the officers knew of his crime because his insanity makes him paranoid.
that the novel is a log of events and a tale of what might be in the
He gives us his side of the story. He explains how all these years the actually narrator framed him and it was all wrong. The storyline itself is ultimately distinctive than the actually story itself. In the Three Little Pigs the narrator is from the author telling the actual story in a more complex way. I can tell that in these two totally unique stories that each side has a different point. The wolf explains how everything is wrong and that he didn’t mean to blow down their houses he just had a cold, although in the other story the author explains how the wolf uses differently ways and ends up dying in the end. The narrator will always shift but the audience ought to be directed to the
The fixation on the old man's vulture-like eye forces the narrator to concoct a plan to eliminate the old man. The narrator confesses the sole reason for killing the old man is his eye: "Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees - very gradually - I made up my mind to rid myself of the eye for ever" (34). The narrator begins his tale of betrayal by trying to convince the reader he is not insane, but the reader quickly surmises the narrator indeed is out of control. The fact that the old man's eye is the only motivation to murder proves the narrator is so mentally unstable that he must search for justification to kill. In his mind, he rationalizes murder with his own unreasonable fear of the eye.
This is the first sign that we can trust this narrator to give us an even-handed insight to the story that is about to unfold. But, as we later learn, he neither reserves all judgments nor does his tolerance reach its’ limit.