|
|
Post by juliamann on Sept 24, 2015 21:37:05 GMT
"The Interlopers" relied heavily on the use of situational irony. During the whole encounter of Gradwitz and Znaeym the two are constantly mentioning how their men will come and save them. Whether it was used to boast that the one would be saved from the tree while the other would have to suffer and possibly die, or used as hope that the two will be set free, they mention their men coming throughout the whole story. When the audience believes that Gradwitz or Znaeym’s men are coming to help them, situational irony comes into play. Instead of men coming to rescue them, a pack of wolves invades and most likely kills the two. This use of situational irony adds a much more interesting element to the story. Most people would not enjoy the story as much as they do if it did not have such a surprising twist, created by situational irony. The story also relies on its element of conflict. There is a major shift in conflict occurring in this story. The entire exposition and rising action is about a conflict between two men, which we refer to as man versus man conflict. This conflict is the main plot of the story until the two resolve their long-standing rivalry and become friends. After this event, the conflict switches to man versus nature when the pack of wolves rushes towards them instead of their men. This shift in conflict adds interest to the story, just like the situational irony. The readers think the conflict is resolved until a new, entirely different one, arises. The use of both situational irony and conflict in “The Interlopers” adds drama to the story and entertains the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by jzhangx3 on Sept 25, 2015 0:10:14 GMT
I agree with what you said, Julia. The Interlopers also uses verbal irony. The title itself, The Interlopers, suggests that there will be intruders, or people who become involved in a situation where they are not wanted/do not belong, in the story. As the plot continues, the reader assumes that the intruder mentioned in the title is Georg Znaeym, who hunts on the disputed border-forest that belongs to Ulrich von Gradwitz. However, the real intruders aren’t people; rather, they are wolves that invade the forest and kill the two men. The conflict is man (Znaeym and von Gradwitz) vs. nature (wolves). Also, the author utilizes Setting: the whole plot is based off of the setting, which is in the disputed border-forest in the Karpathians. The setting gives the reader a sense of tension and suspense. Ulrich von Gradwitz patrols the forest searching for George Znaeym, who he fights with over the forestland, but they both get hit by a tree and end up vulnerably lying on the ground in the middle of the forest. Powerless as they are, they end up becoming good friends while they’re suffering, leading to a resolution of one of the main conflicts, man vs. man.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghulamcontractor on Sept 25, 2015 0:51:21 GMT
That is what makes this story the best out of all three in my opinion. In the beginning the conflicts are more personal just as you said Julia. They live in a damp and gloomy forest and their conflicts involve something of the past rather than the real danger that is right outside their homes. The shift in conflicts reminds me of when people care about more about their personal desires rather than what must be done at a time. Only when they are in trouble, do the realize what is more important. An example would be procrastination and when you are doing something at the last second. I always end up asking myself if I did anything productive in the past week.
Also Jen, I agree. Saki really does make use of verbal irony. Another example would be when Ulrich first sees them coming down the hill. He mentions, "They hear us! They've stopped. Now they see us. They're running down the hill towards us," (Saki 7). After that, Ulrich calls them "brave lads" because they are speeding down the hill. At this point, it is safe to say that they are going to be saved. But the exact opposite happens. Those "lads" turn out to be wolves.
|
|
|
|
Post by lreinhardt230 on Sept 25, 2015 2:04:09 GMT
I agree with you all, this story is a major example of situational irony. One major point I'd like to discuss is that just as they make amends, something awful happens. This is ironic because both men came from opposing sides of a feud of many years, and right when they befriend each other, they are attacked by wolves. Now it will never be known by another soul that they had decided to get along, and therefore the feud will most likely continue on both sides. Because it was so close to being solved, but it will forever go unnoticed, this is very ironic. The vulnerability being laid out by both men while in front of their supposed worst enemy creates irony because they are supposed to be strong and willing to fight each other, but the same fate destroys both of them as equally weak targets.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurendean on Sept 25, 2015 3:01:19 GMT
I also agree with everyone. I think that the situational Irony in this story is what makes it the best out of the three we have read This is of the twist of events of the wolves coming instead of the men. The author did a really good job at making the reader think that once they made amends that everything was going to be fine and they were going to be saved. Leading up to waiting for the men to come was also a great example of suspension. It really made you wonder who's men were going to save them, you waited and waited for an answer, to find out it was wolves, most likely not coming to save them because they were both stuck. I also think that the conflict is man vs. man in the beginning when we knew both hated each other, but the other conflict man vs. nature (wolves) would of never happened if the man vs. man didn't take place. If they could of just gotten a long and resolved their issues further, none of this would of happened But because of their stubbornness of each other to not make amends until forced, it leads to their downfall of both sides. So it is very ironic for something good to finally happened, just to be ruined.
|
|
|
|
Post by subhanikp on Sept 25, 2015 4:03:09 GMT
I would like to add on to your ideas as well as propose some questions regarding irony in "The Interlopers". Situational irony played a huge role in developing the change in conflict in the story. In my opinion, the irony goes hand-in-hand with the change in conflict. For example, as soon as the man vs. man conflict ends with their befriending of each other, the situational irony comes into play. One would think that resolving all conflicts between the two men would lead to their salvation, but in reality, it does no such thing. Nature's power takes over and leads the men to their inevitable deaths. Why do you think the author used irony along with a change in conflict to convey a certain meaning? What was the point of having the reader believe in one thing, and then completely flipping it upside down on him or her?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxstauff on Sept 25, 2015 13:41:46 GMT
I think everyones ideas have been good so far and I'd like to add on aswell. The overall irony and change of conflict in "Interlopers" does have a specific pupose, so i'd like to add my own opinion on the matter itself. I believe that the purpose of the situational irony in the "Interlopers" was to advance the theme of the overall piece, which I believe to be that conflict that arises between people will eventually come out to consume them all. We can see this especially in the situational irony and the change in conflict that arises from the fact of the two men's hunt of eachother becomes the reason they are trapped under a tree and (possibly) die by wolves that surround the trapped nen. This irony really highlights the frivalty of the two mens conflict in the first place. Where the wolves and the new conflict that arises from them acts as a force of nature that will possibly tear the two men apart. The author does a great job of using these techniques to convey her own meaning of the overall story.
|
|
