Thursday, April 5, 2012

Compare and Contrast Post #3: Levels of Literary Analysis

     I didn't particularly enjoy either of these author's writing styles.  They tell a very fluid and well built story but I find that it was too much of a narrative for me.  Each book simply stated what happened in the story, and what the main character was thinking occasionally.  I enjoy novels that dwell on the actions of the story, extending beyond the thoughts of the character and diving into complex ideas and how they affect the characters.  For example, in Of Mice and Men, I would have appreciated a section of the introduction be devoted to defining George and Lennie's relationship, who benefits from what parts of it, how it formed, etc.  While these things could be gleaned from intense literary analysis, I find that it makes for a better story if it is built directly into the novel.
     One of the things I found interesting about both of these novels is the length of the book.  Both books barely top 100 pages each, yet they are extremely famous novels and are considered classics.  I used to think that for a book to be a classic, it had to be very long and cover absolutely everything about the story, such as War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.  However, a book like War and Peace explains absolutely everything in the novel.  Books like Night and Of Mice and Men, however, leave the interpretation to you.  Depending on how deep of a literary analysis you perform, Of Mice and Men could be about friendship, dealing with mental disabilities, or even the dueling idealogies of logic and spirit.  Night could be about surviving hardships, determination, adolescence, or the false hope of putting faith in religion.  These books could be all these things and more.  On the surface, Of Mice and Men is about a farmhand and his mentally disabled friend. Night is about a boy and his father surviving the holocaust.  But they transcend these simple stories and become so much more.  This is what a true classic is defined as.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

The Results of Time

Compare and contrast for Night and Of Mice and Men:  Post 4

   Jon, in our past posts, we have talked quite a lot about things such as freedom and discrimination, and I feel that these things are closely associated with the time period in which they take place. It is true that the desire to be independent and the concept of bullying can occur anytime and anywhere, yet there is something about the way our minds work that relates the ideas people develope to the era in which they live. You have talked much about how the places where these two books are set impact the main characters, but I want to mention how the time aspect of the settings impact the thoughts of our "villains."
   Both the stories we have read for this project take place in the past, and even if they are not too far back, they still are impacted very much by their settings. As the world progresses in technology and such, there is more for the general public to access so that it can learn about the significant impacts the small actions they take can have on the world. After the time of Night, there was a sense of knowing what was happening to the Jews of Europe around the world, and the access to real life stories of dispair and pleas for help is what ignited that very sense. "We had forgotten everything--death, fatigue, our natural needs. Stronger than cold or hunger, stronger than the shots and the desire to die, condemned and wandering, mere numbers, we were the only men on earth." (Wiesel, 83). If this book and its events were to have taken place further back in history, it would have been harder for others to acknowledge that killing due to religion was wrong since there would be nothing a person could see or do that would send that message. This is what happens within Of Mice and Men with Lennie; others gang up on him and accuse him of doing things because they really have no way of knowing that it is wrong. For instance, when George asks Curley to have mercy on Lennie for accidentally killing his wife, Curley replies with:  "'Don't shoot 'im?' Curley cried. 'He got Carlson's Luger. 'Course we'll shoot 'im.'" (Steinbeck, 95). With modern times comes modern technology that can help people view the world from the point of view of another that is suffering, and that can often save lives by manifesting into realization.
   The time period of a story is important due to the fact that people can often be immune to the traditional ways of the past, and therefore, be hooked to many regulations that don't fit into a modern world. Night and Of Mice and Men are both similar in the way that they both contain people (major characters even) who are hooked onto the ideas from the past that no longer would make sense in today's times. Hitler, for example, was swaying in the thought that ultimate control can only be achieved if the "filthy" and "impure" people of the world were somehow removed from proper society. In the same way, Curley was a man who floated in the idea that someone who was not mentally able to contribute to a community should be an outcast since nothing is gained out of him or her. If we think about it, both of these are ideas that have been existing for a long time in history, and a change in the setting of these stories would not have given them the same meaning that can be seen now. There are people that think in similar ways to Hitler and Curley even now, but that is changing as new generations are reestablishing the rules on which societies work.
   Overall, the messages and feelings I have received from these two books made me happy that we chose to read them; I hope they have made some impact on you too, Jon.
P.S. Don't worry, Jon. I will read your later posts even though I am done...

The Impacts of Writing Style

Compare and contrast for Night and Of Mice and Men:  Post 3


   Jon, I can totally see the point you made about how much the settings of these two books affect what the main characters have to deal with and what they get out of those experiences. I was also happy to see that you thought the way I did about the fact that Elie and Lennie could be seen as extremely different individuals due to their learning processes. In books such as Night, there is not only one person that is affected by the setting, yet I have developed a sympathy for Elie's sufferings, and this makes it seem like he went through more than anyone else did in the Holocaust (while we both know that is most likely not true). As for Of Mice and Men, Lennie's disability to learn why he was treated so differently made it hard for him to adapt to the setting of his book, and this made the setting a big problem for him. Even though plots can be described as moving the entire story along, they make the most impact on the main characters of books, and this means that Elie and Lennie/George went through significant change from the beginnings to the ends of these books.
   In this post, I want to focus mostly on the differences between the writing styles of Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Steinbeck because there are many that can be noticed. Mr. Wiesel wrote Night from personal experience, and this was able to create a dark and realistic tone for it, and while Of Mice and Men might be an earthly book, it is nothing like Mr. Wiesel's book when it comes to voice. The most noticeable difference between these two writing styles is that Night was written in first-person while Mr. Steinbeck wrote in a third-person fashion. Usually, a first-person fashion puts the reader into the shoes of the main character, making the events of the story more powerful, and while Of Mice and Men wasn't entirely hard to connect to, Night's style succeeded in pulling the reader towards it. There is a sense of the innocence of a boy going through pain in Mr. Wiesel's writing, and it gives the reader and opportunity to be that boy for a short while. "When they withdrew, next to me were two corpses, side by side, the father and the son. I was fifteen years old." (Wiesel, 96). Although a third-person style is not the best form of writing, many stories are written perfectly for it, and this makes them interesting all on their own; Mr. Steinbeck's novel wouldn't have been at all the same if written from either the view of Lennie or George since both of their views can be seen in this specific fashion. Mr. Steinbeck had a choice for the tone he gave to his book, and he chose one that would present multiple aspects of his society to the reader, making Of Mice and Men all the more unique and interesting. For example, Crooks can be given action-descriptions to tell things about his character, something that can often be difficult in first-person:  "The room was swept and fairly neat, for Crooks was a proud, aloof man." (Steinbeck, 66). On the other hand, Mr. Wiesel didn't really have an option for writing style since his own experiences would most likely get in the way of his imagination if he tried to write something other than a memoir.
   Both books bring with them reality, whether written about real events or merely drawn from instances in the real world, and this is something that connects them, no matter how different their writing style. Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Steinbeck both found ways in which to get the reader attached to the characters within Night and Of Mice and Men, making sure to incorporate huge amounts of feeling into their writing so that the reader could go through the same emotions they felt while writing. Whether first-person or third, whether real or imaginary, whether one main character or two, both of these men wrote with such intensity that it inspires those who read their work to make a difference in the world.
   What style did you like to read more, Jon? What story was enhanced more due to how it was written in your opinion?


   

Compare and Contrast Post 2: Effects of the Plot and Setting

     Surbhi, I feel that Elie and Lennie are pretty different people.  Yes, they were both victims of discrimination, and they both reacted with confusion to their unfair treatment, but I feel that is where the similarities end.  Lennie is mentally disabled, and I think this changes his aspect on the world greatly.  When Elie is discriminated against for being Jewish, he knows why the Nazis are doing this to him.  He may not understand their reason, but he understands that they have a reason.  Lennie, however, does not understand the reasons people are angry at him. He does not have the mental capacity to think from their point of view, and imagine their reaction to his actions.
     I think that the surroundings of the characters and what happens in each story really shapes them and who they are in each novel. Elie, who slowlys becomes emotionally callused and stolid as the book progresses, has to develop these personality traits in order to retain his sanity in the concentration camps.  He would not develop these if the story was set in, say, a small town in the US. That's a very strange example, but it's a place where a person doesn't have to emotionally guard themselves against a genocide going on around them.  Lennie and George, two nomadic farmhands who pick up work where they can, develop scavenger-like instincts that are prevalent especially in the beginning of the book to help them find work, supplies, anything they need.  They wouldn't develop these skills if Lennie and George were instead working on urban farms close to present-day cities, not sparse, distant fields scattered across the midwestern US during the Great Depression.
     Each character's surroundings shape him into a different person as the story progresses.  Elie becomes emotionally stolid and indifferent to death.  Lennie becomes more conscious of his actions.  George questions his choice in friends.  These are all direct results of the setting and specific events in the story.
     Who do you think was most impacted by the setting of each novel? Who was most impacted by plots within the story?