In Joss Whedon’s episode “Hush” of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer, he had to find a way to tell an entire story with very little dialogue. This technique is very hard to do and it takes someone with a very high skill level in order to be able to accomplish that. Sound is a very important component to any sort of moving visual. It allows for the plot to move forward, it enhances our senses, and it helps our brains to remind us of what is happening. Within this episode the characters discover just how instrumental sound is and learn what it’s really like to lose a part of that, by not being able to speak.
Although it was humorous and creative, it was less entertaining because it was predictable. For example, when Bilbo had to get out of the cave his only complication was the crack (which was located earlier than in the book) which he got through so the audience knew he would make it out alive. Whereas in the novel he had to get through the goblins and the crack (which was in a less convenient place than in the
Vonnegut uses literary devices to develop his unique style. His own style helps bring out the tone of “Harrison Bergeron”. In the beginning of the story the author used a lot of repetition sentences to really emphasize on the layout of the story when stating multiple times “nobody was” or “they were/weren’t”. Throughout the story there are plenty of negative sentences speaking of what people used to be like and what they weren’t allowed to do now. Hazel and George’s dialogue were made up of several sentences that are all really simple and random and illustrates to the reader that to them there is not too much to talk about.
This book is not a difficult read, an elementary student could read it, but the issue of the plot is what makes this novel so serious. For example, when “Blood and something else, something white and gel-like” (313) is described to extrude from Assef’s eye, a seemingly graphic scene is made moderately gruesome. Evidently, no complex vocabulary or literary devices are used. Also observed is the fact that Hosseini tends to frequent the use of flashbacks. These flashbacks often occur at epiphenous moments in Amir’s life.
Unlike other trifle characters in the story, What if the protagonist, Guy Montag, never met Clarisse, Beatty, and Faber Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451? Clarisse, Beatty, and Faber are the main reasons why the novel has depth. These characters are essential to the story because they make the story more interesting and suspenseful. Each character has a particular purpose in why they have written and how they each impact the main character. At first all the characters were not close and they where impersonal with each other as the book goes on they started to get personal with each other and started to have an impact with montag.
Which in the end resulted in a very unfitting demise for Gatsby and Myrtle. Nick is not an honest storyteller but he is a reliable narrator because throughout the story he has been judgemental towards others and not saying the full truth or truly giving the reader the satisfaction of knowing his feelings. In the beginning, he said this “In consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgments, a habit that has opened up many curious natures to me and also made me the victim of not a few veteran bores.” (Pg.1). Thus from the very beginning of the novel, Nick was stating he had to reserve all judgments but as the reader continues to read on this statement turns out to be false as he in multiple occasions judges a character such as Tom, Gatsby, and Daisy. Nick is a reliable narrator though he tells the full truth all the way to the end well at least to the reader not actually to the characters in the novel.
“A Rose for Emily” is a unique short story that keeps the reader guessing even though its first sentence already reveals the majority of the content. William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” is the epitome of a work that follows an unconventional plot structure and a non-linear timeline, but this method of organization is intentional, as it creates suspense throughout the story. William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” follows an unusual plot structure, which creates an eccentric application of suspense to a short story. Throughout the story, there are no clear indications of standard plot structure in each section, such as intro, climax, and denouement. Instead, there are sections, which are not in chronological order, that describe a particular conflict or event, which in turn creates suspense, as each conflict builds upon each other to make the reader question the overall context and organization of the story.
This said blindness is presented on many different levels, from the pure ignorance of Zorbach of the plot development to the ride the reader is taken on with a sense of foreboding but no real clues of what will happen. The author uses repetition to great effect in the epilogue and prologue, in an effort to create the haunting effect of what could have been should Zorbach have realised the implications of his actions. The interchanging of third person and first person narration, however, is what allows all the plot devices to flow together in the making of the “perpetuum
Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez seemed as an unusually confusing book on the surface, but after the discussion, the book started to make sense. Though at the same time, the discussion only raised more questions about little details within the book. The first point brought up within the discussion was the changing perspectives was the most interesting aspect of the book. Because I am person that enjoys things being in order, I do not agree. The switching of perspectives made the book have a messy feel to it.
(1945) that the older fiction books are better than the new ones. This because the older fiction books had more virtue of imagination and style, which Wilson believes many detective stories lack today. Fiction writers today have more difficulty in controlling their stories and instead they had a life of their own and “flew away” states Wilson. Raymond Chandler writes in his article “The simple art of murder” (1944) how difficult it is to write fiction. According to Chandler, writers today have a poor knowledge of the society in which we live.
The essay “what is poverty?” on the other hand was pretty affectively written due to all the detailed examples and quotes from different people; but the conclusion made the point of the paragraph less important because it was pretty quickly concluded and lacked many details. Finally, the documentary displays an acceptable level of special effects and provisional shooting
In Fahrenheit 451, information is restricted, and people are given so many useless “‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information”(pg 58). So they’ll be ‘happy’, but it is a fake happiness. Because of this people think they are happy, but commit suicide because they are not. There are also a small few who still read books, but they must keep it a secret, or the books
Overall, The Good Earth was not a book that captured my attention. This novel left me discontented and I felt as though it ended quite abruptly. I expected for this book to include a bit more action and drama as well. On the contrary, I did like the historical element that was included and also the major plot twist at the end. If anyone wants to know the ending, they’ll just have to read the book to find
The strengths of the novel, in my opinion, outweigh the weakness. The main weakness was the excessive cursing done by Vida. When a character curses a few times, it adds emphasis, but when it happens every couple pages, it loses its effect. The strengths included the sentence variety, like how they weren’t all compound and complex, and not all simple and short. It made the reading more interesting, and the plot twists, like Clancy being at Dairy Queen instead of Cate, and Jude dying, made you want to keep reading until you finished, and then
I was a little hesitant to try this one for two reasons, even though I loved the sound of it. One, Young Adult Mystery stories are very hit or miss with me. I don 't like it when I know who the bad guy is before the main character does; it takes all the fun out of it in my opinion. Two, I hate it when synopsis are written in the first person. It generally gives no sense of what the story is about and is just plain confusing.