|
Post by briwiegand on Sept 23, 2015 20:31:30 GMT
In "The Interlopers" the narrator is in the point of view of third person omniscient. Usually this is for the reader to see what all the characters are thinking. The story does provide the reader with both the thoughts of Ulrich and George, but it hints at something bigger. The two men are always referred to as "both". For example, "both men spoke with the bitterness of possible defeat before them, for each knew that it might be long before his men would seek him out or find him". Because the two men are referred to as both instead of as two separate people, it starts to imply that they are the same type of person. Even though they have differences and are in a feud, they act the same. They both realize this as they make up under the tree. It can be implied that they are able to make up because they understand that they are actually very similar and not at all different and that they should be friends not enemies. This realization can only be seen to the reader through the omniscient narrator making it an important literary device in the story.
|
|
|
Post by jesswang on Sept 24, 2015 1:21:34 GMT
Bri - I love your point that the author of "The Interlopers" utilizes the third person point of view in order to emphasize how both men are essentially the same. They are both stubborn men caught in an ancient feud dating back many generations; they both hate each other for the same reason, and then they both become friends for the same reason. By using "both" instead of describing the men individually, the author creates a distinction between the characters and himself to show that pointless arguments often lack emotion and empathy. If it were set in first person point of view or even third person limited, there would be personal emotion and feeling added to the story, which detracts from the author's purpose. I also think the author used third person omniscient to make the theme universal and applicable to people in everyday life. By not focusing on one character in specific, the theme can apply to everyone in the story and can extend to apply to people all around the world. The author is teaching us that we could be in a similar situation without even knowing it; whether it be an argument with a friend or a grudge with an enemy, we should reconcile before it becomes too late. The point of view is not only an important literary device in itself, but it also helps to strengthen other devices in this story such as theme.
|
|
|
Post by matthewzhang on Sept 24, 2015 20:29:34 GMT
I couldn't agree any more about your topic on theme Jess. The point of view in "The Interlopers" does broaden the theme of the story and I just want to elaborate on the theme even more. Two men are caught in a conflict that is not rightly theirs, and it distorts the friendly relationship that they should have towards each other. Before the blow out occurs, both men are still caught up with the pointless conflict and neither of them have given up their grudges toward each other. The physical blast that knocks down the two men symbolizes an epiphany that both men experience which leads them astray from their hatred. They both quickly realize how much they have in common and realize how their friendship can finally exist. With this new perspective of their relationship, both men quickly dissolve their hatred and grudges. This sudden disappearance of their conflict shows how useless their hatred was in the first place. With the third person omniscient point of view, the author is able to bring out this theme of how useless conflicts can be. Because the omniscient point of view lets the reader look into the minds of both men, the readers are able to see how both men are able to develop and then resolve the grudge they had against each other.
|
|
pavansuresh
New Member
I am Pavan the Skeptical Elf.
Posts: 26
|
Post by pavansuresh on Sept 24, 2015 21:24:02 GMT
Matt, I would definitely agree with your point about the omniscient narrator being a very important plot tool. However, it would be interesting if the story had been told from a limited third-person or a first-person protagonist narrator - we would only be able to see into Georg's or Ulrich's mind, and the story would be a whole lot different from how it is actually told. For one, only the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of the one character whose mind we had insight into would be elaborated on directly. One would then have to infer indirectly the thoughts and feelings of the other character. However, seeing into only one's mind would not be as compelling as seeing into both minds: if it was in first person, then one could only see the dynamism (I'm not entirely sure what the noun form of "dynamic" is) of a single character, and part of the plot would not be apparent. However, since Saki wrote it as a third-person-omniscient narrator, we can see that both men realize how idiotic they were being about the whole land claim business. It is a good tool to use in stories such as this which include multiple dynamic characters.
|
|