pditzler
New Member
I'm here to analyze literature and be a cool kid, and I'm all done being a cool kid.
Posts: 16
|
Post by pditzler on Sept 24, 2015 20:23:27 GMT
In A&P, Steinbeck uses indirect characterization to develop the readers' perceptions of the characters. The protagonist and antagonist, Sammy and Lengel, respectively, act as foils for each other as they disagree upon the outfits of the girl customers. Through Lengel's conservative opinion that the girls must wear appropriate clothing to the store and Sammy's stand in support of the girls, the reader can see the rift between generations. Sammy, throughout the story, is shown to be an average teenage boy, (despite some questionable comments), interested in any girls wearing revealing clothing. His "act of valor" by quitting his job after Lengel reprimands the girls is only spurred by his "hoping they'll stop and watch me, their unsuspected hero." The conflict between him and Lengel is significant, as Lengel is an old friend of Sammy's parents, revealing that there is a generational gap in opinions. Lengel tries to plead with Sammy, invoking the possible response of the teen's parents when they discover their son has quit. Sammy only admits his foolish impulsiveness in the final line, realizing that he would have a tough time being successful in life if he made a dramatic statement every time he disagreed with something. His impulsiveness is especially mockable, as the girls didn't realize his stand for them, and he is left disappointed and without a job. Sammy is a dynamic character, learning a valuable lesson after he has cut off his nose to spite his face.
How else do John Steinbeck or the authors of the other stories broaden their audience's perceptions of the characters?
|
|
|
Post by cnelson on Sept 24, 2015 21:51:35 GMT
His "act of valor" by quitting his job after Lengel reprimands the girls is only spurred by his "hoping they'll stop and watch me, their unsuspected hero." The conflict between him and Lengel is significant, as Lengel is an old friend of Sammy's parents, revealing that there is a generational gap in opinions. Lengel tries to plead with Sammy, invoking the possible response of the teen's parents when they discover their son has quit. Sammy only admits his foolish impulsiveness in the final line, realizing that he would have a tough time being successful in life if he made a dramatic statement every time he disagreed with something. His impulsiveness is especially mockable, as the girls didn't realize his stand for them, and he is left disappointed and without a job. Sammy is a dynamic character, learning a valuable lesson after he has cut off his nose to spite his face. The author's inclusion of the generational gaps between Lengal and Sammy even the arguable generation gap between him and Stokisie, who is "married with two babies chalked up on his fuselage already", might have led Sammy to feel misplaced at A&P. Like most teenagers, it could have caused him to feel like none of the adults truly understood him. I think that was most likely why he didn't listen to Lengal's advise. I also saw his admiration towards the girls could not only be due to just the fact that hes a teenage boy, but also due to the fact that he wished to be outgoing, and brave like they were. This might be why Sammy did an "act of valor" by quitting, and in return was "hoping they'll stop and watch me, their unsuspected hero." Updike used this particularly prominent action, and thought of Sammy's to illustrate his need for validation from those of his generation, a very well known concept that all teenagers have dealt with at one point.
|
|
|
Post by nzglinicki on Sept 25, 2015 0:44:33 GMT
That's a good point, Christy! The age difference very well could have been a factor. As I know from experience, being the "baby" of the group can be a bit intimidating and make you feel as if you don't fit in. Having the possibility of getting some praise or attention would have made him feel as though he were stepping out of that "baby" phase and growing into the next phase, and he did, just not in the way he thought. He had no praise, but he sure did need to grow up after that incident. He now needs a new job, there probably won't be any connections, and he needs to grow up to enter his big boy phase, because quitting for a chance at attention just isn't mature.
|
|
gmiades
New Member
I love English Class
Posts: 10
|
Post by gmiades on Sept 25, 2015 1:37:16 GMT
He now needs a new job, there probably won't be any connections, and he needs to grow up to enter his big boy phase, because quitting for a chance at attention just isn't mature.
I totally agree. I feel that he was Sammy was just hoping for his one minute of fame to commence after quitting, and Lengel probably sensed this. Christy's point about the age gap could go in two different directions: Lengel doesn't understand why Sammy spontaneously quit after he told the girls to leave, or he knows exactly why Sammy quit because of life experience. The second choice of the two seems the most promising the me because after Sammy confirmed that he had quit, Lengel says "I thought you did." That gives off a signal that Lengel almost anticipated Sammy to quit.
|
|
|
Post by danvolpone on Sept 25, 2015 2:35:45 GMT
Characterization is also important to understanding the plot in Accident and in The Interlopers. Both of these short stories use indirect characterization as a means of characterization. In the Accident by Dave Eggers, "you," presumably the narrator at an earlier time, shows much about his personality through his thoughts and actions, without ever using an adjective to describe himself. He shows himself to be lonely by the fact that he was in the car by himself. He also shows this by considering the people in the car into which he crashed to be his friends, even though they are teenagers who are displeased with him because he just ruined their brand new car. He also showed himself to be very paranoid. Even though the teenagers are calm and he promises to pay for the damages, he repeatedly worries that he will be punched in the face, and after the boys do not punch him, he keeps thinking to himself how grateful he is that they did not hit him and uses this as a reason that he thinks the boys are his friends. This also shows that he is out of touch and may have trouble socially. In The Interlopers by Saki, both Ulrich von Gradwitz and Georg Znaeym are characterized using indirect characterization, and are shown to be very similar. Both are extremely prejudiced, which is shown when they threaten to kill each other when they meet for the first time. They each consider the other to be their enemy, even though neither seem to know the reason for their hatred, other than that they were taught to hate anyone from the other family. However, after talking to each other for about ten seconds, they immediately become friends and admit that they understand the other's side in the family argument over the land. Through their dialogue, both characters can also be seen to be dynamic characters. At the start of the short story, both men are looking to kill each other over their families' feud for land. Although there are obvious compromises, those being to share the land or to split it down the middle, the two men never consider making peace. However, through their experience of mutual suffering, the men become more open-minded and learn to understand each other. They agree to share the land, which would have ended the family feud. The reader is left not knowing if the men live, although it seems likely that they were eaten by wolves. If this is the case, the men were stubborn for too long, as no one else knew of their agreement and the family feud over the land would likely continue. As for A&P by John Updike, the protagonist also showed himself to be rash when he quit his job to stand up for the three girls in the store. He tries to be a hero, but he can not afford to make this decision, as he now does not have a job and recognizes that his life is going to become much more difficult. He also proves himself to be stubborn when he says that his family views the part of the story where he gets fired to be sad, but he does not consider it to be sad, showing that he stands by his costly decision.
|
|