I think I figured out why you wrote, “pretending to be a literary critic.” And I can’t tell if I’m mad or glad about it. Let me explain:
I told myself to take a break from this project and also _City of God_ because that book is an in-your-face kind of text. It’s incredible, but damn overwhelming. I wanted to read a light short story… I’ve gotten to the point where I literally see this unreliable narrator plus humor plus nostalgia plus schizophrenia in just about everything. I chose something by Sherman Alexie. Of course, what did I realize? Everything is unreliable and funny and full of nostalgic schizophrenia. Why? Because I chose to see it in that light. “I can connect/ Nothing with nothing.” Ah-ha!
Because of this epiphany, I’m thinking about the ball being thrown towards the
…show more content…
Can you analyze the audience? An unreliable _reader_ uses humor with nostalgic schizophrenic traits when reading a text. (Not exactly humor, but we read for entertainment/amusement). Connecting stories with stories, demanding to learn, grasping insight. Writers want readers to see the point they 're faking to make. For example, I don’t know about you, but when I read fiction with historical events involved, I’m engaged, but I feel unsettled. As if, I’m in the wrong to be reading these words from this voice who is attempting to create an already made past in order to give readers something. _This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen_ by Tadeusz Borowski has been one of those types of stories for me. A heart-wrenching story. Why do we like reading about the past that’s gone, more importantly, a past so horrific, then created in fiction to please our curiosity of what we will never understand? We don’t believe the past is gone at all— that’s where the schizophrenia tags along. And maybe that’s the pattern/connection. A full circle with narrators and their audience. Just