Sorry. I did forget to put up the blog! Thanks to Kelli for posting on the old one - hey, you tried right?! :-) So here it is: Choose either ONE of the two stories and discuss how the point of view impacts the story. No more than 11 people may discuss either story! ;-)
In Hills Like White Elephants, the amazing thing about the point of view is that there practically isn't one. The third-person narrator speaks from an omniscient POV, but there is no insight at all into what the characters are thinking or feeling. It's almost like we are watching a movie, except there are no facial expressions or visual cues to let us know what they are thinking. By using such a sparse and outside POV, Hemmingway forces us to think harder about what's going on between the two people in the story.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills Like White Elephants, the point of view is technically omniscient, because it follows more than one charter, but the narraotr does not discuss faccial expressions, thoughts, or even the characters' tones of voice. This makes it kind of in between omniscient and limited, because the nararator gives the reader so little detail. It's very similar to if we were to be sitting at the station eavesdropping. The reader must infer what is going on and read into the story to understand the true meaning of the "opperation." This means the reader must really think hard to get that this is NOT a secret spy mission (Kelli) lol.
ReplyDeleteIn The Cask of Amontillado, the point of view is first person, however, the reliability of the narrator is questionable. There is no proof that Fortunado actually wronged Montresor and if Montresor was able to not only plan Fortunado's death, but also carry it out without showing remorse, his mental health is debatable. The point of view impacts the story because the reader is able to see inside the mind of a murderer and what he is thinking and feeling while taking the life of another.
ReplyDeleteIn the Cask of Amontillado, the first person perspective impacts the story by giving the reader a distinctly one-sided version of the story. Fortunato probably didn't think he had done anything to merit being walled up in a crypt. Montresor thought he deserved it, but how can we know? We only get Montresor's feelings and impressions from the story.
ReplyDeleteHills like White Elephants is third person limited point of view. It is like someone is in the room with the characters, but has no idea what they are talking about. This leaves the audience feeling the same way. Hemingway wanted the audience to understand the story using context clues. He wanted us to form our own opinions to what the characters are thinking and feeling. The story i suspenseful and confusing. Basically you have to pay very close attention to the story, and hints in order to understand it.
ReplyDeleteIn the Cask of Amontillado, the point of view is from the first person perspective, Montresor. We are only seeing the story from his side, and who knows how reliable (or mentally stable) this character is. It is unclear whether Fortunado actually did something bad to Montresor or if it is all in his head. Because we only see this one side, we only know of what Montresor is thinking and feeling as he kills another man.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills Like White Elephants the story is being told in the third person limited point of view. Because of this, the readers are only aware of what the narrator tells us. We have no insight in to what any of the characters are thinking or feeling. Since we are unaware of the characters' feelings, we must rely on our own intuition and knowledge to form our own opinions on what the characters are thinking and feeling.
ReplyDeleteHills Like White Elephants is the POV of third person limited. Because it is like this it is basically like we are the people sitting by them at the train station. We only know what the characters are saying. We do not know what they are thinking at all. Therefore we have to use our own imagination and find out what "operation" the couple is really talking about.
ReplyDeleteIn The Cask of Amontillado, the story is told through first person point of view. This effects the story because the only information we are given is from Montresor, and we are unable to know anything other then what he tells us. Also we understand from the beginning that he is planning on exacting his revenge on Fortunado, even though we don't know what he's planning exactly. If the story were told in third person limited or from Fortunado's point of view, we wouldnt know what Montresor was planning until the end.
ReplyDeleteThe Cask of Amontillada is told in first person point of view through Montresor. We learn that Montresor wants revenge against Fortunado, but we as the reader cannot be sure if Fortunado deserves the revenge. This is because we only see Montresor's thoughts which are unreliable.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills Like White Elephants, the point of view is third person limited.Because of this, we aren't able to know what any of the characters are actually thinking. This makes the reader become a part of the story because they feel like they are sitting next to the characters and listening in on their conversation. It makes the plot seem more real. If the story would have been told from Jig's POV, we would have known exactly what the operation was and what her true feelings were about having an abortion.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills Like White Elephants, even though it is told in third person, it is limited. AKA third person limited.This effects the story because it is told from the man's point of view as he is discussing a procedure or operation his significant other, Jig, is considering having done. Because the story is told from the man's point of view, the reader never learns if the operation is what we suspect, an abortion. If the story were told from Jig's point of view, the reader would most likely be made aware of the operation at the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills Like White Elephants, the narrator is basically clueless, the point of view is still in third person limited. The narrator basically just tells the reader the exact words the characters are saying, without any added insight.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills Like White Elephants, the point of view was third person limited. Readers did not get any insight into the character's thoughts or feelings, which I'm sure is the reason I misinterpreted the story the first time... If the story had been told in third person omniscient, then I'm sure I would have understood the story because everyone's thoughts would have been obvious. If the story had been told in first person, either the man or Jig's thoughts would have revealed the secrecy of the operation. However, if it was in the first person point of view of someone else at the bar, they probably would have been just as confused as me.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills like White Elephants, the point of view is third person limited because we dont know what the characters are thinking. We only know what they say.
ReplyDeleteIn The Cask of Amontillado, the narration is represented through first person. Thus, only the thoughts and feelings of MOntressor are given and the story has a sense of vengenance and spitefulness. The reader misses out on the feelings of Fortunado, which in my opinion, would be really cool to know, considering he is being trapped alive in some underground cellar (creepy)!! narration is limited and only gives the viewpoint of Montressor. Since the reader doesn't know whether Fortunado did anything or not, the revence sought by Montressor is never really justifies and leaves a sense of mysteriousness.
ReplyDeleteIn Hills like wWHite Elephants as people have said above is in third person limited. We dont know what the characters are thinking only what they express. If the story would have been in another point of view than im sure people would not have missread it as i did. i had no idea what was going on the entire story i was so lost.
ReplyDeleteIn the Cask of Amontillado the first person narrative impacts the story because the story is one sided. We only see Montressor's point of view, and we never know what Fortunado is feeling nor thinking. The story then becomes mysterious to the reader because we don't have Fortunado's story to compare with, to know if he is at fault or not.
ReplyDeleteIn the Cask of Amontillado, the story is told by Monstresor. Since the story is told in first person, readers only can observe the thoughts and feelings of the narrator, Monstresor, and only the actions of others that he observed. This leaves readers out in the dark on some parts because Monstresor never told what exactly Fortunado did to him, leaving his death unjustified. If the story were told by a different person, like Fortunado, the story would portray Monstresor as a bad person because it would be written in Fortunado's point of view.
ReplyDelete