Short stories to me have always had a beginning, middle, and end. When I come to read these short stories in class, I was completely dumbfounded. The short story “The Colonel” begins with a lot of detail. And I like that because I get a feel for the setting and what is going on around the characters. But there were a few things that I did not like about the story. First off, the point of view was in first person, but they mainly focused on the characters in the background, or main the main character which is the Colonel. It explains just about every move that he makes but on the other hand, the fact that it is in first person, makes me question what the author was trying to accomplish at this time. Also the author decides at the end to use “distasteful” metaphors. The author compared the ears in a basket or so of the Colonel’s to looking like half of peaches. I can definitely call that sensory language but it is not anything that I totally agree with because of the feeling it gives be. Visually in my head I am looking at the peaches and how good they smell and look, but I am also getting the taste of dirty dead ears in my mouth which is why I call the metaphor distasteful.
There were other things in the poem that I realized. I noticed that in the syntax was in very simple form. Almost childlike because it seems as if the author was more focused on the detail given in the story rather than using and difficult words. The grammar and sentence structure was as easy as possible. Also the diction was very simple. Using very simple sentences that describe the Colonel and the setting made it easier to understand. Even though the sentences were very simple in vocabulary and in structure, not once did the author not have the sentences follow each other.
My group and I also decided to read the series of Mystery Stories. They were very confusing and frustrating because to us, it really did not make any logical sense to have an incomplete story. The story had detail. It was very vivid even though majority of them were no more than three sentences. The stories seemed to have given you detail and create a setting. But when you get to the end the story drops cold turkey and it leaves you hanging, but not like they do in those really good novellas. These mystery stories ended very abruptly and then added a fragment sentence to complete the story. I called them fragmented sentences because it was hard to understand if the sentence was suppose to leave you to come up to your own interpretation or to leave you puzzled about what you read. It could easily be both. I tried my hardest to get a better understanding of what was actually being told in the story and what the author was trying to get across to their audience. I personally think it didn’t work, for me, it left me bothered and more confused than when I started to read it.
But nonetheless all of the mystery poems told a story, gave a background and setting; and it presented a conflict. The conflict could not be deciphered by the author deliberately. I am guessing that the author wanted to find a new way for the audience to interact with their poems, or short stories. Either way, as frustrated as I might seem when I read it, it makes more sense and seems to have more of the creativity within the concept itself rather than just the art of the poem/short story.
great!
ReplyDelete