Review 9

Rajeet Guha New School Homework 9 Irrespective of whether one reads or listens to a short story or novel, every piece of fiction has a point of view. Every author communicates the work of fiction to the reader or listener from a specific and consistent point of view. Rarely does an author use multiple points of view in a work of literature. Point of view can be in first person, second person or third person. It is a sacrosanct multilateral agreement among the author, the author’s fictional characters and the anonymous readers. Point of view in literature cannot be conflated with opinion. Rather, point of view in literature is akin to perspective or what angle one is looking from at a particular person, event, phenomenon or process. Consistency in point of view in literature leads to one and only one perspective in a novel or story. Seldom in a work of literature are multiple points of view or multi-perspective used. Nonetheless, exceptions can always be made as a writer on occasion switches point of view within the same work. In any story or novel, it is the narrator who speaks. The narrator might or might not be the author. The narrator in a majority of cases speaks directly to the reader. In a minority of the cases, the narrator speaks to someone other than the reading public. In such an unconventional scenario, the reader snoops into a private correspondence between the narrator and the intended recipient. Sometimes, the reader spies or pries into the writer’s private thoughts that are so private that are only for the author’s eyes. Everyone in the world barring the writer is forbidden to read the written narrative. In this case, the writer is narrating the story to himself or herself. The writer in this instance is both the narrator and the intended reader such as in a private diary. In fiction, form is of inestimable importance. Fiction can take the form of prose or verse. In prose, the piece of fiction may be written in the form of a short short story, short story, novella, play, novel, fairy tale, newspaper or magazine report, a confession, a diary entry, a journal, oratory, dramatic monologue, interior monologue or stream of consciousness. Besides form, another notable consideration for the writer is his closeness and relation to the reader. Using specific nouns or verbs, the narrative can have proximity or closeness to the reader. Use of abstract nouns or verbs can keep readers at an arms length from the writer. If the narrative is presented with plenty of dialogue, then the readers will be able to relate to the characters. If the narrative has a lot of summary, then the readers won’t feel an affinity or repulsiveness with the characters. In fiction, it is a dictum that the reader and the author must have a good bonding. Readers should be able to identify with certain characters, sympathize with others and also feel an aversion or even an abhorrence of other characters. In the first person point of view, the pronouns I and We are used. The second person point of view utilizes the pronoun You. The third person point of view uses the pronouns He, She, They, Them, Those and These. In the first person point of view it is the narrator and not the author who is speaking. The first person narrator could be a central narrator or the protagonist. The first person narrator in other cases could be a peripheral narrator or one of the minor characters. In either of the two first person narrator point of view cases, objectivity is palpably absent. The first person narrator point of view is one of subjectivity, not of objectivity. In the unusual cases of the second person narrator point of view, the reader is not just a reader but is also a willing participant or character in the narrative. The author has involved the reader in the story. It is the author who speaks and is ipso facto the narrator of the story. The second person narrator point of view is also subjective. Junot Diaz uses the second person narrator point of view. Finally, the third person narrator point of view is the most pervasively used in fiction. In the third person narrator point of view, it is the author who speaks to the reader. The third person narrator point of view like the second person narrator point of view has the author as the narrator. However, the third person narrator point of view unlike the second person narrator point of view does not involve the reader as an interactive character in the story. In the third person narrator point of view, the story is addressed to the reader. The third person narrator point of view can be either objective or subjective. This third person narrator point of view is of three kinds. The third person narrator point of view can be omniscient or all knowing, limited omniscient or partially knowing, and finally the completely objective point of view. In the third person omniscient the author knows about the thoughts and feelings of all characters, understands all events, incidents and phenomenon. It is entirely the author’s subjective point of view or perspective here. In the limited omniscient the author delves into the mind of only one of the characters. The author understands the thoughts, feelings and the actions of only one of the characters. The author doesn’t know about the other characters’ thoughts or actions. The author is also in the dark about what events will take place and why it will take place. This limited omniscient point of view is thus partially objective and partially subjective. In the third person objective narrator point of view, the author is a non-subjective, unprejudiced observer of facts, events and incidents. The author is clueless about the motivations behind the acts of his or her characters or what the proclivities of the characters are. This third person objective narrator point of view is as the name suggests a thoroughly objective point of view. Orientation is a short story written by Daniel Orozco. In this bizarre story, the narration is in the first person narrator point of view. The narrator is the newcomer’s lord and master. The narrator is the new entrant’s boss who is extremely cut and dried. He demands absolute loyalty and obedience from his subordinates including the latest recruit. The boss is an officious and pompous person who seems to micromanage everyone under him. The boss brooks no dissent from anyone. He seems to know the details of the private lives of everyone in the office including gory details. The boss is also aware of the idiosyncrasies and peccadilloes of the office staff as well. He is also cognizant of the strengths of his employees. It is in this respect that the boss, who is the narrator switches effortlessly back and forth from the first person point of view to the third person narrator omniscient point of view. The boss is a gossipy person who is full of himself and instructs new office staff with a mixture of loquacity and bluster. The boss is nevertheless a peripheral narrator. The protagonist is the anonymous and obscure new entrant. The story is addressed to the reader. The point of view is subjective in the story. The plot of the story is extremely rambling and is essentially a monologue. The story explores interesting themes though. The story is a commentary on corporate culture. It ridicules the mechanistic, dehumanized ethos of the office life. It mocks and satirizes bureaucracy including corporate bureaucracy. It lampoons the litany of rules and regulations that stifle the creative spark of employees in the workplace. Office culture reduces professional staff to mere cogs in the wheel and devalues the intrinsic worth of individuals. The narrator mercilessly skewers this idea. This story is an excoriating critique of the nine to five workday norm of the bureaucratic workplace. The story also hints that the office is a fecund place for social gossip. The narrator also reveals that the workplace is a natural breeding ground for malicious rumors. Romance is not unknown in the office according to the narrator. Thus we see that the narrator provides plenty of dramatic irony. The narrator is an unreliable narrator. Nevertheless, the narrator ultimately says that despite knowing the severe drawbacks of employees, the company values employees and keeps them employed only on the basis of their professional output. Who’s Irish is a marvelous short story written by the Chinese American writer Gish Jen. It is a story told in the first person narrator point of view. The narrator is an old, curmudgeonly Chinese woman who is also a grandmother. The narrator or the cantankerous Chinese woman is the protagonist in the story. The narrator is the first person central narrator. The narrator’s point of view is quintessentially subjective in nature. The antagonist in the story is the adorable, impish and independent-minded granddaughter Sophie who is half-Chinese American and half-Irish American. Sophie’s Chinese American mother is the primary breadwinner of the family. She is a successful person. Sophie’s Irish American father is a bit of a wastrel but a good person. Sophie’s Irish American uncles are indolent individuals who are also free riders like her father. Sophie’s grandmother is a woman of strong convictions and she disparages these idle Irish Americans. Sophie’s grandmother makes no bones about expressing her complete contempt for her son-in-law and his slothful and unemployed brothers. Sophie’s grandmother’s outlook towards life is Eastern and she believes that the husband should be the primary earner of income in a household. She also believes that in old age, children should look after parents. Instead, the grandmother aids her daughter Natalie by babysitting Sophie. She feels that the young should be reverential and submissive towards the old. She has a wee bit of xenophobia and plenty of prejudice towards the Irish. In the end, it is ironical when the grandmother is turned out of the house by her daughter and son-in-law for corporally chastising Sophie, she finds solace and refuge in Bess’s house. Bess is an Irish American and her son-in-law’s mother. The old Chinese lady who scorned the Irish has finally found a home away from home in an Irish household. Her Irish friend is a compassionate woman who treats Sophie’s grandmother as a fellow Irish. The story explores the theme of the generation gap. It shows how generational differences in outlook create communication constraints and communication gaps. Generation gaps result in misunderstandings and conflicts. Generation gap and the consequent communication gap are unbridgeable chasms. The story also explores cultural gaps and barriers. The Orient and the Occident are in some ways as different as chalk and cheese. Eastern and Western ways of living can sometimes be diametrically opposite especially with notions of patriarchy, liberalism, child rearing, child abuse, independence and freedom enjoyed by the young, and corporal punishment. It also shows how unsuited the joint family is to modern living. Finally, it shows that cultural gaps are not as wide as generational gaps and people of the same age group bond together with love and friendship. It shows that compassion, love and friendship triumph over identities like nation, race and culture. Gusev is a superb short story. Gusev is written by the towering Russian short story teller, playwright, essayist and novelist namely Anton Chekhov. Chekhov wrote this story in the 1890s after his trip to Sakhalin Island in Siberia. Chekhov saw the ignominiously inhuman and terrifyingly brutal conditions that imprisoned people were subjected there. Chekhov’s plot in Gusev is straightforward. The plot is a conversation between two conscripted civilians returning to Russia from the Far East after they have caught tuberculosis. These two civilians – one a peasant and the other an intellectual – have contracted tuberculosis after being exposed to inhospitable and unhygienic conditions while doing their soldierly duties in the Far East. They are being shipped back to their home along with other ill soldiers, who are on their last legs. They have been herded like cattle and dumped in the infirmary of the ship. Gusev, a peasant bereft of intellect and Pavel, an atheist intellectual and a social critic, are two people engaged in an unpleasant conversation about different facets of society in Tsarist Russia. They both soon kick the bucket. Pavel enters the slumber room first and is soon followed by Gusev. Their bodies are then unsentimentally dumped into the ocean. Gusev’s body becomes food for the shark. Ultimately, Gusev’s and in general the insignificance of human beings is borne out by the breathtaking beauty of the sky and the endless expanse of the ocean. The story is told in the third person narrator point of view. It is not an objective narration. The author has adopted the third person omniscient narrator point of view. The author Anton Chekhov is the narrator. He knows about the thoughts, aspirations, worldviews, dreams and motivations of everyone in the story. Chekhov knows everything about the places, events, incidents, economic conditions, intellectual climate, social milieu, political environment and changes that are coursing through Russia. This is a subjective point of view. Gusev, a straitlaced and unpretentious peasant is the protagonist in the story. The insufferable intellectual and the cranky critic Pavel is the arrogant antagonist who deprecates Gusev. The views of these two characters on Russian society, politics, military and punitive action are diametrically opposite. Chekhov uses a blend of naturalism, imagism, symbolism and realism to create this scintillating sensory prose work. Chekhov utilizes economy of language and fantastic imagery to convey ideas in this piece of fiction. The naturalism of the story is provided by the hues of colors in the sky and the assortment of cloud formations in the sky. The vivid description of the ocean and its inhabitants also fits the genre of naturalism. The unsanitary and insalubrious conditions of the sick ward of the ship mirror the unhygienic conditions of ships carrying terminally ill soldiers in Tsarist Russia. Symbols like dark smoke and the head of an eyeless bull convey the fogginess of Gusev’s thoughts and also his primal nature. When Gusev sees the image of his niece sticking her foot out in the cold, it implies that he is worried that his niece might be susceptible to frostbite. The symbol of caged canaries singing is juxtaposed along with Pavel’s ranting and ravings. Both emphasise the futility of effort whether trapped in a cage or illness. Gusev, in his delirium, displays stream of consciousness. Gusev is a simpleton who is incapable of thinking critically. He cannot comprehend abstract ideas. He only thinks of his family and village. He is parochial and narrow-minded. His patriotism has made him hostile towards foreigners. His animosity and xenophobia is evident when he needlessly assaults Chinese men. He has irrational impulses and sudden bouts of anger. In Freudian psychology, his unconscious mind dominates him. His ego is still in a fledgling state. He kowtows before authority and feels his commanding officer has the right to punish him. Gusev is dominated by his primal mind. Nonetheless, his ignorance and inability to comprehend critically has contributed to his mirth. Gusev, in a microcosm, represented the impoverished Russian peasantry who humbly accepted their pathetic position in the stratified society of imperial and reactionary Russia. For centuries, these innocuous and ignorant masses were oppressed and exploited by the venal and decadent rulers of Russia. Pavel, on the other hand is a peevish person. He is a pompous intellectual who rails against the injustices and evils in Russian society. He thinks critically and analyzes the political, social, economic and religious environment of Russia with remarkable clarity. Pavel represents the educated intellectuals who were vociferously advocating reforms in Russia. It is unclear whether Pavel wanted gradual reforms or dramatic reforms. It is in the contrast between Gusev and Pavel that Chekhov has talked about the two classes in Russian society; one class stuck in an antediluvian mindset and the other class who was in the throes of agitation and trying to bring in reforms. Gusev is a pacifist in the mold of Tolstoy and wants to preserve the status quo. Pavel, on the other hand, is a gadfly and is ready to stir discontent. Pavel probably can identify himself with the ideals harbored by the members of the Russian Social Democrats. Chekhov, despite being a liberal, wanted incremental and gradual reform of society. Chekhov was not a radical reformer. Chekhov abstained from revolutionary activities and refrained from violence as a means to attain upward mobility for the masses. Chekhov was a pacifist and was a great admirer of Tolstoy. Chekhov sympathized more with Gusev rather than identifying himself with Pavel. That seems to be the reason that the story is titled Gusev and not Pavel.