“The Hull Case” is told through third-person limited point of view; we are given the story through Henry’s perspective, which is crucial because only then can we understand his frustration with his wife, his secret insecurities, the reason why he feels uncomfortable with reporting the UFO: “it made him mad that she wouldn’t believe him." We see his wife’s naiveté and blindness through his eyes, and since he personally does not remember the spacecraft, whether the UFO was real or not becomes ambiguous and therefore less important than the overall theme of the story. Indeed, his wife’s narrative about her experience is very much a metaphor for their relationship, rejected and questioned by society, and the very irony of the story is that Henry sees the parallel but Helen does not. If Davies had chosen, for example, Helen’s point of view instead, the result might have been an interesting tale about paranormal experience and not as it is now, a nuanced look at an interracial relationship.
On the other hand, “Gorse is Not People” is third person omniscient, and the narrator often zooms out to give us more perspective: “she saw no reason to imagine this would not happen to her,” “the doctor…was only two years out of medical school and still believed that patients should be spoken to and smiled at,” “the nurse looked at Naida’s shrunken body,” and, of course, the crucial final scene with the paper that signals the death of Naida’s hopes. However, the story is also told through the protagonist’s perspective at times, and in this way Naida’s thoughts are contrasted with harsh reality, creating a stronger sense of tragedy. We know it is inevitable—there is no other way this story could end—but because we experience Naida's emotions, we are drawn to her innocence and simple hopes, and we want her to succeed. Then, because she is ignorant of what has occurred, we experience frustration and sadness in her stead.
The choice of POV in both “The Hull Case” and “Gorse is Not People” affects our responses to the characters as well as how objective we perceive the narrators to be. In “Gorse is Not People,” the piece begins in a second person point of view before transitioning to an omniscient point of view. By writing in second person, which is an unconventional point of view that appears to be confining, Janet Frame directly speaks to the reader and thus hooks the reader’s attention through the series of rhetorical questions at the story’s opening. Second person allows the reader to experience the story as if it is his or her own, pulls the reader into action, and adds a personal sense of urgency that propels the reader forward. Although we assume that “you” is the reader, the fact that the “I” and “you” are not specifically divulged adds to the story’s mystery and heightens the suspense. The unidentified narrator, “I” proceeds to tell the story of Naida, but who the narrator is and why he or she is telling the story are never answered. The second person point of view at the beginning of the story causes readers to relive the magical nature of a twenty-first birthday, so the story’s ending is especially chilling because it has the exact opposite result. The narration had not an ounce of sentimentality; we know that because she has not been educated, Naida’s view of the world is distorted and her dreams will remain as only dreams.
In contrast to “Gorse is Not People,” “The Hull Case” is written in a third person limited point of view. Because we see the story through Henry’s point of view, we can access only Henry’s thoughts, and we must trust Henry in his interpretation of Helen’s actions and emotions. Viewing the story from the eyes of Henry, arguably one of the only African American men in the town, allows us to understand his anxieties, hopes, delusions, and fears as a man married to a white woman in an era that is very much segregated. Just like “A Temporary Matter” was written in third person limited and could only be told from Shukumar’s perspective, “The Hull Case” made best sense presented from the view of the story’s minority, the person who is most vulnerable and with the highest stakes.
I would have to agree with Leena. I think that in "Gorse is Not People", the third person omniscient point of view is crucial for the telling of the story. Furthermore, by including parts of the story told from the protagonist's perspective, Frame is able to reach the ultimate balance of perspective. Had Frame decided to write from first-person, the story would have been too biased. Obviously Nadia wants to be free and if she had been telling the story, it would have been too focused on her thoughts and dreams. The third-person point of view gives the reader the chance to decide whether or not they want to sympathize with Nadia throughout the story. Hearing the story from this point of view, furthermore, allows the reader to change their feelings toward Nadia quite often, given the way she reacts to the Dr.'s questions as well as the fact that she is clearly uneducated. Furthermore, I often times think of first-person stories as stories being told as it is happening. Frame's story seemed to be more of a reflection of a significant birthday. I think that his choice to use third-person made the whole story more entertaining and open-ended. As for "The Hull Case", I think that Liu makes a very accurate comparison in talking about the importance in "A Temporary Matter" that it was written in third person limited from Shukumar's perspective. "The Hull Case" is written in third person limited from Henry's perspective. This is notable especially because Henry is the only African American in his town and married to a white woman. We are able to understand his feelings and reactions better in this way. Had the story been told from Helen's perspective, it would just be a story about a UFO. The meaning of the story would change completely. When told from Henry's perspective, the reader is able to get more than an interesting story of an unusual experience, the reader is able to learn about the challenges and realities of a marriage between a white woman and African American man before this was really acceptable.
I agree with my colleagues in their determination of the selected point of view for each story. “The Hull Case” is third person limited (Henry’s point of view), though I would speculate that there are brief passages that border on omniscience. When Henry is having flashbacks, I felt that, as a reader, I had access to a little more information than I would have had if the story had been tightly limited to Henry’s perspective. For example, in the passage regarding his early life with Helen, I felt closer to her than in the present sections because the narrator gave more specific and detailed insight into her emotions. I felt closer to her. By using Henry’s point of view, Davies was able to keep the suspense and maintain the mystery behind the nature of this alien contact. Did she dream it? Did it happen? However, this story had more flexibility in its telling than that of “Gorse Is Not People.” For instance, though it would be more limited this story would have been interesting to read from the perspective of the Colonel. This is just a hypothetical suggestion however, as the dynamic of the story would have changed irreversibly.
The third person omniscient telling of “Gorse Is Not People,” however, is crucial. It is important to note that the story does not being this way and is, in fact, in second person. This serves to draw the reader mentally and emotionally into the text, inviting us to contemplate our own lives, our past or present. It asks us to put ourselves in Naida’s shoes. To share her excitement. It was important throughout this story for us to be informed of events beyond the scope of Naida’s narrow world because it allowed us to realize that she was not in fact going to freed though we were allowed to share some of her hope. If we had only received Naida’s view we would not have known about her lack of prospects for release and would have been blinded by her overly idealistic view of the world. A ready example of this can be seen in her engagement to the pig boy. As it is written we can see that this is farfetched, an unlikely circumstance. However, if we blind ourselves everything but the childlike view of Naida we would see this simplistic and plain marriage she has envisioned for herself as Kardashian in a way. Everything would be grand, extravagant, excessive and unsurpassable.
"The Hull Case" utilizes its point of view in a very interesting way. It is written in third person limited meaning the story is told in the third person, but we have insight into the mind of only a single character. The story concerns two conflicting stories of lights from a husband and wife. We get insight into the mind of Henry, the husband, who believes the lights to be from a cop car, while we only hear what his wife, Helen, says who believes the lights to be from a UFO. The third person limited provides the air of possibility that what they actually encountered was a UFO because we are only given Helen's words and not what is currently going through her mind. This provides an atmosphere of mystery as to whether she is mentally stable, whether she is lying to avoid questions, or whether the couple actually encountered a UFO. Third person limited also serves to illustrate their marriage. They are an interracial couple with Henry being the only African American in the entire town during an era where interracial marriages were not viewed favorably. This most likely caused tensions in the marriage as they navigated love with pressure from peers over social acceptability. The third person limited provides evidence of a tension in their marriage for we see that Henry is frustrated with his wife's reply when it mentions his thought process. An additional point is that the limited viewpoint may be indicative of the state of their marriage in which there is no communication; he does not know what she is thinking.
In "Gorse is Not People", the point of view is third person omniscient, meaning the story is told in the third person, but you also know what multiple characters are thinking. Through this technique, I believe you are able to not only sympathize with the protagonist, Naida, but see the views of the caretakers and their guilt as well for what they know will happen. As Caroline pointed out, if only told through Naida, you would view everyone as an antagonist as the view would be the stereotypical unreliable narrator in a mental institute. There was also the transition from second person to third person in the first paragraphs of the story that serve to better sympathize with the protagonist who may be in an unfamiliar position to the reader in general (a dwarf in a mental institute since a very young age).
Janet Frame's manipulation of point of view in the opening few paragraphs of "Gorse is Not People" is critical in arousing surprise and curiosity in the reader. By using second person narration in the opening few lines, Frame prompts the reader to search their experiences and assume a position, likely sympathetic, on Naida's situation. As my classmates have noted above, the shift to third person narration allows Frame to reveal an element of unexpectedness in the main character's condition while maintaining narrative authority. A story narrated by Naida would focus too heavily on her intense desire to be twenty-one and "free," missing the nuances and tension of the institutional bureaucracy that surrounds her.
Third person narration in The Hull Case allows the reader to intimately engage with Henry's insecurities, experiences and genuine love for his wife. We are able to see the injustices that Henry notices but his wife is ignorant of. An interesting question to consider is how the story would read if it were written in first person. Certainly, the author would still capture much of Henry's understanding of the world. However, it would likely dwell too much on each of Henry's racial encounters and lose the immediacy of a short story. It is through thinking about how the story would read in different POV situations that one understands how to most effectively employ the devices themselves.
In “The Hull Case,” Peter Ho Davies uses subjective third person narration to convey the events of the story through Henry’s eyes, in a manner that is more believable and unobtrusive than first person narration. Davies frequently involves Henry’s emotions in the narration, including his thoughts that his life was “too good, unreal somehow, more than he deserved” and his suspicion that the colonel was “trying to trip them up” (5). These asides are distinctly born from Henry’s mind, but they come across as more genuine and believable through Davies’s third person narration—instead of portraying Henry as a potentially unreliable first person narrator, the story’s point of view conveys a believable series of events and Henry’s true reaction to them.
The story “Gorse is Not People” also employs third person narration to great effect, though Frame allows her main character an even greater influence on the style of narration than Davies. After the first page, the story shifts to third person narration, following the dwarf Naida, who is quickly established as a mental patient. Because our view of the world is through Naida’s eyes, we hear her voice in every phrase, from her view of a store—“frozen ladies with dolly-pillow breasts and long pink legs”—to her description of an airport as a place “where airplanes are left to sleep” (5). This style of narration, which lets us identify with Naida’s perception, while still remaining semi-omniscient, makes the looming knowledge of the outcome of her interview especially foreboding. Each time we read about her dreams of marriage and a honeymoon, we are saddened by the knowledge that we have access to as readers, which Naida does not share.
I agree with the classifications above! To avoid rehashing the exact same points, I want to delve into one specific component of “The Hull Case” that I found compelling; while the narrator was limited to Henry’s thoughts, (s)he was omniscient across time, which I think is a really key component of the storytelling. The temporal “fast forward” at the end is what really emphasizes Leena’s point that the story is ultimately not about the UFO at all, but rather about their relationship as a bi-racial couple in a judgmental community. What the whole UFO incident beautifully illustrates is exactly how the two characters differ: Helen wants to engage the world about their issues, while Frank would rather remain private. The aliens themselves are trivial; the bottom line is that Frank fears being judged by others, while Helen cannot seem to comprehend why the world should not accept them as they are, especially if they are telling the truth (the truth about what they saw/the truth about why they married). In the story, the author is able to hint to the possible racial and cultural contributions that ultimately made their worldview so distinct.
To touch briefly on “Gorse is not people,” I thought it might be worth mentioning that I thought the brief second person appeal at the opening was disorienting. While intriguing, it felt somehow too casual and self-assuming, and made me distrust the narrator. Until the speaker began to reference the emotions of characters outside of Naida, I actually thought that Naida was telling her own story in the third person. As soon as the concept of the mental institution was brought up, all of the following narration seemed questionable.
Overall, the 3rd person narration is critical to the telling of both stories (for many reasons), but mostly because the reader would disinclined to trust Naida (mentally unstable) or Henry (UFO spotter, albeit skeptical) as a speaker. The external narration gives the reader a certain amount of security that the knowledge we are receiving is true.
I agree with Lori and Michelle, who said that the use of second person in "Gorse is not People" helped make the reader sympathize with Naida. Being told, as a reader, that you remember something and are familiar with something that to the best of your knowledge does not exist certainly makes you suspicious about what comes next, but it also does an interesting little in-group/out-group trick. The narration assumes you're part of the in-group that knows these things, making the reader feel confused and eager for explanation. Then, suddenly, the narrative describes the out-group who received no key or party or cake, and the reader (who also received none of those things) latches on to the out-group immediately--these are my keyless people.
The most interesting thing for me about the switch in perspective was how the second person continued to manipulate my relationship with Naida, pages in. I never got a key for my twenty-first birthday, but I was introduced to the story as though I had gotten one. And when Naida thinks about getting hers, the in-group/out-group dynamic changes: maybe I never got a key, but if I had, I wouldn't have acted like Naida. Without that feeling of distance, this story would be almost unbearable. With it, the story's ending feels tragic but inevitable.
"The Hull Case," meanwhile, uses the limitations of Henry's point of view and memory to make us doubt the UFO abduction. These are the sorts of stories on which we put massive burden of proof, and that proof has to come from more than one person and his wife, whom we already know he doubts. I actually disagree that Henry's general honesty (which is devastating) makes the reader believe what he's saying is true. His embarrassment and self-doubt should be enough to convince us what he saw is real, but because we're so skeptical by default, the limited narrative allows us as readers to doubt just as much as Henry.
I also want to avoid rehashing earlier points, so I want to engage with the points that I found the most salient/that resonated the most with me. I want to engage in particular with “Gorse is not people” because that’s the one that the POV confused me the most on. I found the POV very effective in helping me identify with Henry on “The Hull Case,” which means that I don’t have quite as much to say about it.
Like Rosie, I also thought Naida was telling her own story at first (after the second-person part at the beginning) until realizing it was third person omniscient. I found it confusing and very disorienting, because I was constantly trying to understand the story. I really like Annie’s analysis of how the second-person introduction manipulates our relationship with Naida. However, because I did not really understand the introduction (apparently I was just very confused in this story!), I am not sure that it really made me feel distant from Naida. Instead, I actually really identified with Naida and her naivete, perhaps because we as readers also shared her naivete and confusion. We also did not quite understand the world within this story. I know we’re describing this story as “third person omniscient” but in some ways it doesn’t feel particularly “omniscient” because things are still not really explained. Even though in many ways I actually found “Gorse” more interesting than “Hull,” I ultimately found neither of them particularly satisfying because I had no idea what was “really” going on.
In “Gorse is Not People,” the use of a combination of second person and third-person creates a deeper emotional investment in the story. The first section, where the author directly addresses the reader, provides a sense of intimacy, as if the author is only speaking to one person and giving her attention to a single listener. We are reminded of our own birthdays – generally happy events – yet we know, already, that there is a sadness in Naida’s birthday. Nevertheless we are compelled to read on, and are hooked by Naida’s innocent and unknowing perspective of what is really happening. We have a nervous, almost hesitant, desire to reconcile what the omniscient narrator knows (and thus, what we know) with what Naida does not know.
In “The Hull Case”, we are given Henry’s perspective as we learn about the events and aftermath of his and Helen’s vacation in Niagara. Had the story been told through Helen’s perspective, we likely would have just pegged her as an unreliable narrator, with her insistence on these shaky supernatural occurrences. But Henry’s perspective provides something more than just skepticism. Through Henry’s thoughts, we see beyond a story of alien sightings. Henry, as the more observant one, gives insight into their relationship – how much he cares for her, how much he is pushed to believe because of his love for Helen, how hyper-aware he is of their societal reception. These insights, as Leena mentioned, provide context that catapults the UFO incident beyond its literal meaning, and alludes to how Helen is persistently unaware of the public tensions presented by a mixed-race couple.
Liu made a great point that in "Gorse is not People" the choice of transitioning from second to third person omniscient was a method used to gain the readers' sympathy. By imagining themselves in those conditions, or comparing their own 21st birthday to the unfortunate one that Naida experienced, the reader is more inclined to feel sorry for Naida or understand her pain. The use of a ashore prologue in the second person point of view also creates a foreshadowing of the events to come. While I appreciate the broader perspective available with a third person omniscient point of view, I did not connect as much to this story as I did with "The Hull Case."
Perhaps, it's a personal preference, but I would rather an author that develops and focuses on the reader connection with one character, rather than a smaller connection and a broader perspective. In "The Hull Case", we actually sympathize more with Henry. We see his perspective on the racial tension in his society, and we understand how he could view his wife as being too innocent. The audience connection with Henry is thrown in our face when after agreeing that his wife is probably imagining the UFO incident because of losing her child (and the mental/emotional stress that causes), we see that the wife may have been right at the end of the story. This just demonstrates how the development of the story from Henry's perspective can be powerful enough to shift the readers' perspective to a potentially incorrect one.
In both stories, the third person limited point of view causes the reader to question what is true or untrue, sane or insane. By using the third person limited as opposed to the first person, the author makes the lines more blurred. There is a credibility that comes with the third person narrator that is not given to the first person narrator.
That being said, I found myself more ambivalent towards Henry as the narrator. I attribute it in part to skillfully woven backstory. The subtle differences between Henry and his wife that are continually interjected, along with the different experiences of the miscarriages, makes me wonder how the story originated and perpetuated. You want to believe Henry, but the story seems to absurd and that leaves the reader in a place of ambiguity. I think "The Hull Case" is a wonderfully written story!
“The Hull Case” is told through third-person limited point of view; we are given the story through Henry’s perspective, which is crucial because only then can we understand his frustration with his wife, his secret insecurities, the reason why he feels uncomfortable with reporting the UFO: “it made him mad that she wouldn’t believe him." We see his wife’s naiveté and blindness through his eyes, and since he personally does not remember the spacecraft, whether the UFO was real or not becomes ambiguous and therefore less important than the overall theme of the story. Indeed, his wife’s narrative about her experience is very much a metaphor for their relationship, rejected and questioned by society, and the very irony of the story is that Henry sees the parallel but Helen does not. If Davies had chosen, for example, Helen’s point of view instead, the result might have been an interesting tale about paranormal experience and not as it is now, a nuanced look at an interracial relationship.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, “Gorse is Not People” is third person omniscient, and the narrator often zooms out to give us more perspective: “she saw no reason to imagine this would not happen to her,” “the doctor…was only two years out of medical school and still believed that patients should be spoken to and smiled at,” “the nurse looked at Naida’s shrunken body,” and, of course, the crucial final scene with the paper that signals the death of Naida’s hopes. However, the story is also told through the protagonist’s perspective at times, and in this way Naida’s thoughts are contrasted with harsh reality, creating a stronger sense of tragedy. We know it is inevitable—there is no other way this story could end—but because we experience Naida's emotions, we are drawn to her innocence and simple hopes, and we want her to succeed. Then, because she is ignorant of what has occurred, we experience frustration and sadness in her stead.
The choice of POV in both “The Hull Case” and “Gorse is Not People” affects our responses to the characters as well as how objective we perceive the narrators to be. In “Gorse is Not People,” the piece begins in a second person point of view before transitioning to an omniscient point of view. By writing in second person, which is an unconventional point of view that appears to be confining, Janet Frame directly speaks to the reader and thus hooks the reader’s attention through the series of rhetorical questions at the story’s opening. Second person allows the reader to experience the story as if it is his or her own, pulls the reader into action, and adds a personal sense of urgency that propels the reader forward. Although we assume that “you” is the reader, the fact that the “I” and “you” are not specifically divulged adds to the story’s mystery and heightens the suspense. The unidentified narrator, “I” proceeds to tell the story of Naida, but who the narrator is and why he or she is telling the story are never answered. The second person point of view at the beginning of the story causes readers to relive the magical nature of a twenty-first birthday, so the story’s ending is especially chilling because it has the exact opposite result. The narration had not an ounce of sentimentality; we know that because she has not been educated, Naida’s view of the world is distorted and her dreams will remain as only dreams.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to “Gorse is Not People,” “The Hull Case” is written in a third person limited point of view. Because we see the story through Henry’s point of view, we can access only Henry’s thoughts, and we must trust Henry in his interpretation of Helen’s actions and emotions. Viewing the story from the eyes of Henry, arguably one of the only African American men in the town, allows us to understand his anxieties, hopes, delusions, and fears as a man married to a white woman in an era that is very much segregated. Just like “A Temporary Matter” was written in third person limited and could only be told from Shukumar’s perspective, “The Hull Case” made best sense presented from the view of the story’s minority, the person who is most vulnerable and with the highest stakes.
I would have to agree with Leena. I think that in "Gorse is Not People", the third person omniscient point of view is crucial for the telling of the story. Furthermore, by including parts of the story told from the protagonist's perspective, Frame is able to reach the ultimate balance of perspective. Had Frame decided to write from first-person, the story would have been too biased. Obviously Nadia wants to be free and if she had been telling the story, it would have been too focused on her thoughts and dreams. The third-person point of view gives the reader the chance to decide whether or not they want to sympathize with Nadia throughout the story. Hearing the story from this point of view, furthermore, allows the reader to change their feelings toward Nadia quite often, given the way she reacts to the Dr.'s questions as well as the fact that she is clearly uneducated. Furthermore, I often times think of first-person stories as stories being told as it is happening. Frame's story seemed to be more of a reflection of a significant birthday. I think that his choice to use third-person made the whole story more entertaining and open-ended.
ReplyDeleteAs for "The Hull Case", I think that Liu makes a very accurate comparison in talking about the importance in "A Temporary Matter" that it was written in third person limited from Shukumar's perspective. "The Hull Case" is written in third person limited from Henry's perspective. This is notable especially because Henry is the only African American in his town and married to a white woman. We are able to understand his feelings and reactions better in this way. Had the story been told from Helen's perspective, it would just be a story about a UFO. The meaning of the story would change completely. When told from Henry's perspective, the reader is able to get more than an interesting story of an unusual experience, the reader is able to learn about the challenges and realities of a marriage between a white woman and African American man before this was really acceptable.
I agree with my colleagues in their determination of the selected point of view for each story. “The Hull Case” is third person limited (Henry’s point of view), though I would speculate that there are brief passages that border on omniscience. When Henry is having flashbacks, I felt that, as a reader, I had access to a little more information than I would have had if the story had been tightly limited to Henry’s perspective. For example, in the passage regarding his early life with Helen, I felt closer to her than in the present sections because the narrator gave more specific and detailed insight into her emotions. I felt closer to her. By using Henry’s point of view, Davies was able to keep the suspense and maintain the mystery behind the nature of this alien contact. Did she dream it? Did it happen? However, this story had more flexibility in its telling than that of “Gorse Is Not People.” For instance, though it would be more limited this story would have been interesting to read from the perspective of the Colonel. This is just a hypothetical suggestion however, as the dynamic of the story would have changed irreversibly.
ReplyDeleteThe third person omniscient telling of “Gorse Is Not People,” however, is crucial. It is important to note that the story does not being this way and is, in fact, in second person. This serves to draw the reader mentally and emotionally into the text, inviting us to contemplate our own lives, our past or present. It asks us to put ourselves in Naida’s shoes. To share her excitement. It was important throughout this story for us to be informed of events beyond the scope of Naida’s narrow world because it allowed us to realize that she was not in fact going to freed though we were allowed to share some of her hope. If we had only received Naida’s view we would not have known about her lack of prospects for release and would have been blinded by her overly idealistic view of the world. A ready example of this can be seen in her engagement to the pig boy. As it is written we can see that this is farfetched, an unlikely circumstance. However, if we blind ourselves everything but the childlike view of Naida we would see this simplistic and plain marriage she has envisioned for herself as Kardashian in a way. Everything would be grand, extravagant, excessive and unsurpassable.
"The Hull Case" utilizes its point of view in a very interesting way. It is written in third person limited meaning the story is told in the third person, but we have insight into the mind of only a single character. The story concerns two conflicting stories of lights from a husband and wife. We get insight into the mind of Henry, the husband, who believes the lights to be from a cop car, while we only hear what his wife, Helen, says who believes the lights to be from a UFO. The third person limited provides the air of possibility that what they actually encountered was a UFO because we are only given Helen's words and not what is currently going through her mind. This provides an atmosphere of mystery as to whether she is mentally stable, whether she is lying to avoid questions, or whether the couple actually encountered a UFO. Third person limited also serves to illustrate their marriage. They are an interracial couple with Henry being the only African American in the entire town during an era where interracial marriages were not viewed favorably. This most likely caused tensions in the marriage as they navigated love with pressure from peers over social acceptability. The third person limited provides evidence of a tension in their marriage for we see that Henry is frustrated with his wife's reply when it mentions his thought process. An additional point is that the limited viewpoint may be indicative of the state of their marriage in which there is no communication; he does not know what she is thinking.
ReplyDeleteIn "Gorse is Not People", the point of view is third person omniscient, meaning the story is told in the third person, but you also know what multiple characters are thinking. Through this technique, I believe you are able to not only sympathize with the protagonist, Naida, but see the views of the caretakers and their guilt as well for what they know will happen. As Caroline pointed out, if only told through Naida, you would view everyone as an antagonist as the view would be the stereotypical unreliable narrator in a mental institute. There was also the transition from second person to third person in the first paragraphs of the story that serve to better sympathize with the protagonist who may be in an unfamiliar position to the reader in general (a dwarf in a mental institute since a very young age).
Janet Frame's manipulation of point of view in the opening few paragraphs of "Gorse is Not People" is critical in arousing surprise and curiosity in the reader. By using second person narration in the opening few lines, Frame prompts the reader to search their experiences and assume a position, likely sympathetic, on Naida's situation. As my classmates have noted above, the shift to third person narration allows Frame to reveal an element of unexpectedness in the main character's condition while maintaining narrative authority. A story narrated by Naida would focus too heavily on her intense desire to be twenty-one and "free," missing the nuances and tension of the institutional bureaucracy that surrounds her.
ReplyDeleteThird person narration in The Hull Case allows the reader to intimately engage with Henry's insecurities, experiences and genuine love for his wife. We are able to see the injustices that Henry notices but his wife is ignorant of. An interesting question to consider is how the story would read if it were written in first person. Certainly, the author would still capture much of Henry's understanding of the world. However, it would likely dwell too much on each of Henry's racial encounters and lose the immediacy of a short story. It is through thinking about how the story would read in different POV situations that one understands how to most effectively employ the devices themselves.
In “The Hull Case,” Peter Ho Davies uses subjective third person narration to convey the events of the story through Henry’s eyes, in a manner that is more believable and unobtrusive than first person narration. Davies frequently involves Henry’s emotions in the narration, including his thoughts that his life was “too good, unreal somehow, more than he deserved” and his suspicion that the colonel was “trying to trip them up” (5). These asides are distinctly born from Henry’s mind, but they come across as more genuine and believable through Davies’s third person narration—instead of portraying Henry as a potentially unreliable first person narrator, the story’s point of view conveys a believable series of events and Henry’s true reaction to them.
ReplyDeleteThe story “Gorse is Not People” also employs third person narration to great effect, though Frame allows her main character an even greater influence on the style of narration than Davies. After the first page, the story shifts to third person narration, following the dwarf Naida, who is quickly established as a mental patient. Because our view of the world is through Naida’s eyes, we hear her voice in every phrase, from her view of a store—“frozen ladies with dolly-pillow breasts and long pink legs”—to her description of an airport as a place “where airplanes are left to sleep” (5). This style of narration, which lets us identify with Naida’s perception, while still remaining semi-omniscient, makes the looming knowledge of the outcome of her interview especially foreboding. Each time we read about her dreams of marriage and a honeymoon, we are saddened by the knowledge that we have access to as readers, which Naida does not share.
I agree with the classifications above! To avoid rehashing the exact same points, I want to delve into one specific component of “The Hull Case” that I found compelling; while the narrator was limited to Henry’s thoughts, (s)he was omniscient across time, which I think is a really key component of the storytelling. The temporal “fast forward” at the end is what really emphasizes Leena’s point that the story is ultimately not about the UFO at all, but rather about their relationship as a bi-racial couple in a judgmental community. What the whole UFO incident beautifully illustrates is exactly how the two characters differ: Helen wants to engage the world about their issues, while Frank would rather remain private. The aliens themselves are trivial; the bottom line is that Frank fears being judged by others, while Helen cannot seem to comprehend why the world should not accept them as they are, especially if they are telling the truth (the truth about what they saw/the truth about why they married). In the story, the author is able to hint to the possible racial and cultural contributions that ultimately made their worldview so distinct.
ReplyDeleteTo touch briefly on “Gorse is not people,” I thought it might be worth mentioning that I thought the brief second person appeal at the opening was disorienting. While intriguing, it felt somehow too casual and self-assuming, and made me distrust the narrator. Until the speaker began to reference the emotions of characters outside of Naida, I actually thought that Naida was telling her own story in the third person. As soon as the concept of the mental institution was brought up, all of the following narration seemed questionable.
Overall, the 3rd person narration is critical to the telling of both stories (for many reasons), but mostly because the reader would disinclined to trust Naida (mentally unstable) or Henry (UFO spotter, albeit skeptical) as a speaker. The external narration gives the reader a certain amount of security that the knowledge we are receiving is true.
I agree with Lori and Michelle, who said that the use of second person in "Gorse is not People" helped make the reader sympathize with Naida. Being told, as a reader, that you remember something and are familiar with something that to the best of your knowledge does not exist certainly makes you suspicious about what comes next, but it also does an interesting little in-group/out-group trick. The narration assumes you're part of the in-group that knows these things, making the reader feel confused and eager for explanation. Then, suddenly, the narrative describes the out-group who received no key or party or cake, and the reader (who also received none of those things) latches on to the out-group immediately--these are my keyless people.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing for me about the switch in perspective was how the second person continued to manipulate my relationship with Naida, pages in. I never got a key for my twenty-first birthday, but I was introduced to the story as though I had gotten one. And when Naida thinks about getting hers, the in-group/out-group dynamic changes: maybe I never got a key, but if I had, I wouldn't have acted like Naida. Without that feeling of distance, this story would be almost unbearable. With it, the story's ending feels tragic but inevitable.
"The Hull Case," meanwhile, uses the limitations of Henry's point of view and memory to make us doubt the UFO abduction. These are the sorts of stories on which we put massive burden of proof, and that proof has to come from more than one person and his wife, whom we already know he doubts. I actually disagree that Henry's general honesty (which is devastating) makes the reader believe what he's saying is true. His embarrassment and self-doubt should be enough to convince us what he saw is real, but because we're so skeptical by default, the limited narrative allows us as readers to doubt just as much as Henry.
I also want to avoid rehashing earlier points, so I want to engage with the points that I found the most salient/that resonated the most with me. I want to engage in particular with “Gorse is not people” because that’s the one that the POV confused me the most on. I found the POV very effective in helping me identify with Henry on “The Hull Case,” which means that I don’t have quite as much to say about it.
ReplyDeleteLike Rosie, I also thought Naida was telling her own story at first (after the second-person part at the beginning) until realizing it was third person omniscient. I found it confusing and very disorienting, because I was constantly trying to understand the story. I really like Annie’s analysis of how the second-person introduction manipulates our relationship with Naida. However, because I did not really understand the introduction (apparently I was just very confused in this story!), I am not sure that it really made me feel distant from Naida. Instead, I actually really identified with Naida and her naivete, perhaps because we as readers also shared her naivete and confusion. We also did not quite understand the world within this story. I know we’re describing this story as “third person omniscient” but in some ways it doesn’t feel particularly “omniscient” because things are still not really explained. Even though in many ways I actually found “Gorse” more interesting than “Hull,” I ultimately found neither of them particularly satisfying because I had no idea what was “really” going on.
In “Gorse is Not People,” the use of a combination of second person and third-person creates a deeper emotional investment in the story. The first section, where the author directly addresses the reader, provides a sense of intimacy, as if the author is only speaking to one person and giving her attention to a single listener. We are reminded of our own birthdays – generally happy events – yet we know, already, that there is a sadness in Naida’s birthday. Nevertheless we are compelled to read on, and are hooked by Naida’s innocent and unknowing perspective of what is really happening. We have a nervous, almost hesitant, desire to reconcile what the omniscient narrator knows (and thus, what we know) with what Naida does not know.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Hull Case”, we are given Henry’s perspective as we learn about the events and aftermath of his and Helen’s vacation in Niagara. Had the story been told through Helen’s perspective, we likely would have just pegged her as an unreliable narrator, with her insistence on these shaky supernatural occurrences. But Henry’s perspective provides something more than just skepticism. Through Henry’s thoughts, we see beyond a story of alien sightings. Henry, as the more observant one, gives insight into their relationship – how much he cares for her, how much he is pushed to believe because of his love for Helen, how hyper-aware he is of their societal reception. These insights, as Leena mentioned, provide context that catapults the UFO incident beyond its literal meaning, and alludes to how Helen is persistently unaware of the public tensions presented by a mixed-race couple.
Liu made a great point that in "Gorse is not People" the choice of transitioning from second to third person omniscient was a method used to gain the readers' sympathy. By imagining themselves in those conditions, or comparing their own 21st birthday to the unfortunate one that Naida experienced, the reader is more inclined to feel sorry for Naida or understand her pain. The use of a ashore prologue in the second person point of view also creates a foreshadowing of the events to come. While I appreciate the broader perspective available with a third person omniscient point of view, I did not connect as much to this story as I did with "The Hull Case."
ReplyDeletePerhaps, it's a personal preference, but I would rather an author that develops and focuses on the reader connection with one character, rather than a smaller connection and a broader perspective. In "The Hull Case", we actually sympathize more with Henry. We see his perspective on the racial tension in his society, and we understand how he could view his wife as being too innocent. The audience connection with Henry is thrown in our face when after agreeing that his wife is probably imagining the UFO incident because of losing her child (and the mental/emotional stress that causes), we see that the wife may have been right at the end of the story. This just demonstrates how the development of the story from Henry's perspective can be powerful enough to shift the readers' perspective to a potentially incorrect one.
In both stories, the third person limited point of view causes the reader to question what is true or untrue, sane or insane. By using the third person limited as opposed to the first person, the author makes the lines more blurred. There is a credibility that comes with the third person narrator that is not given to the first person narrator.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I found myself more ambivalent towards Henry as the narrator. I attribute it in part to skillfully woven backstory. The subtle differences between Henry and his wife that are continually interjected, along with the different experiences of the miscarriages, makes me wonder how the story originated and perpetuated. You want to believe Henry, but the story seems to absurd and that leaves the reader in a place of ambiguity. I think "The Hull Case" is a wonderfully written story!