Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 200 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by midnight on Wednesdays, no exceptions.
In the process of writing a short story or any story really we must define and give the audience an indication of who is the main speaker. In chapter six LaPlante offers help and knowledge on, if not all, a majority of perspective in addressing point of view. Personally I’ve only ever stuck with first person who is mostly consisting of using “I” and speaking as the narrator. I’ve dabbled in third person speaking which LaPlante defines on page 196, last paragraph as “a continuum of possible narrators” which is self-explanatory; there is no main character speaking, this point of view is also known as omniscient. I someday would like to try to write out something in second person now that I’ve got an insight on what that details. I feel chapter six is basically a refresher on what we should know about point of view and adding useful suggestions on what approach is fitting to the circumstance. Upon reading “The Lady with the Little Dog” I was unpleasantly surprised to find out it was about two married people who find one another and share a connection with each other, and then they cheat on their spouses. Although I don’t like the concept of fidelity I feel it is very untraditional which is always good as a writer and the idea that these people after meeting by fate, create this one of a kind spark that they’ve never felt. I also feel LaPlante sampled this story to exhibit an example of omniscient point of view which was well done.
ReplyDelete-Claire Cardenas
Upon reading LaPlante’s chapter 8 “Who’s Telling This Story? Point of View”, I was able to understand just what it is about point of view that had always given me trouble. I felt like this was a breath of fresh air for me personally as I now have some ideas for future stories. I always thought that the narrator and the author were kind of the same person, however, I see that they just have a special relationship. I thought that LePlante’s description of what the relationship is like, on page 191, was a little harsh and yet right. “it’s like the relationship between a puppeteer and a puppet. They might sometimes raise their right hands at the same time or move to the left simultaneously, but they are not the same.” One thing though that I did notice was how LaPlante said, “A skillful writer will know how to pan in and pan out, just like a skilled camera operator on a movie set.” (202) and then goes on in the next page to say “Sudden shifts in distance can be disconcerting for your readers.” Doris becomes Mrs. Mannerling out of nowhere. LaPlante changed her view out of nowhere. Not just Doris. I got a little confused on pages 202-203 because of that, unless I am missing something, she is contradicting herself. Does that mean that no one can be a skillful writer if a reader gets thrown off by small details like?
ReplyDelete-Marco Garza
In every short story, the perspective of the narrative is one of the important if not the most significant element of writing. It becomes the author’s voice, the writer’s source for providing readers the material and the knowledge to help them understand the view we are given. In Chapter 6 “Who’s Telling This Story, Anyway? Point of View,” LaPlante stresses the importance of determining the point of view the reader will read from. For this, she gives immense detail on every three points of views, going so far as to provide examples of each particular viewpoint whether it is limited, omniscient, or detached. I found this very useful as I didn’t know the particulars of certain perspectives. These examples also clarified a few questions I had regarding what perspectives I should go with – the last part about choosing and their purpose was one of the best bits about LaPlante’s advice. She even expresses shifts and distance as two elements to look at, both concepts I was oblivious to but grateful to know now. I thought this was one of the most enlightening chapters we have read thus far especially with how we can use these perspectives together instead of just simply using one throughout the entire narrative.
ReplyDeleteWith “The Lady with the Little Dog,” I found it interesting how these two married people suddenly came together with similar interests. The fact that they got along so well also peaked my enthusiasm. In addition, it didn’t seem like there was any resolution or no traditional problem to be held unless you count their affair as a problem they shared. In fact, the story seems more like a slice of life narrative, one that shows the spiritual journey of Gurov, who feels that his life is meaningless and boring. After Gurov, meets Anna, it creates a spark that fills his and her life with meaning despite the trials they might face later for their actions. I feel that this highlights the importance of life, love, and happiness along with the discovery of such ideals especially in such a place as 19th Century Russia. All this implicates the value LaPlante placed on the narrative, which I believe is a great example of 3rd Person Omniscient where we are given Gurov’s perspective and his thoughts on his surroundings that he sees and feels around him.
- Joseph Gonzalez
After reading LaPlante’s chapter 6 “Who’s Telling This Story, Anyway? Point of View,” I found it very interesting on what LaPlante says about the point of view the reader will be reading. When I am reading or writing a story I prefer to use third person point of view instead of first or second person point of view. I was never really fond of the other two styles. And I like how she provided plenty of information on how to make sure a writer can make their point of view clear to the readers.
ReplyDeleteAs for the story “The Lady with the Little Dog” it was a very surprising story to read. To see two people who are married in a loveless marriage come together and begin an affair while on vacation away from their spouses. Upon meeting each other there was something that brought them together and made them get some happiness. After reading this story I had to admit I did not enjoy this story much because of them (and the husband many other affairs) cheating on their spouses behind their backs instead of facing them and telling them they were not happy with the way their marriage was falling apart.
-Leslie Perez
The reading for this week was an informative read, the focus on point of view in LaPlante`s book was a good read, because point of view is something is another thing I just gloss over when writing, in my mind the story will take a shape of its own and things like point of view will just be chosen naturally as I write, but LaPlante has shown me that is really sloppy, some stories benefit from either being first, second, and or third. Using my regular method of writing could cause me to miss an opportunity to have a really compelling story simply because I ignored a point of view choice.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through all the things LaPlante said I had one disagreement, I couldn’t really agree on the idea that third person is the hardest to write, or that first is the easiest, I feel that at the very least first is the 2nd hardest while, second person is the hardest, second seems so arbitrary and very immersion breaking that it has a chance to fail at every other glimpse of the word you, while third person seems like it has every chance to fall back on the fact that it is just a story and isn’t trying to be more than that.
- Eduardo Castellanos
In Chapter 6, Who’s Telling This Story, Laplante dedicates her focus to the three different points of view, which most writers and readers are already very much familiar with, but what’s more is that LaPlante explains how each of the three points of view can help or hurt your narrative. By explaining what the results of each of the point of view ultimately do to your readers when you use them the young writer can decide, based on the effect it will have on the reader, which point of view to use in their specific narrative. Also, LaPlante explores the notion of what these points of view can do in your narrative when you ultimately decide to use one or the other. Though LaPlante also explains that even though implementing a first person narrative in your story, which can bring your reader right up against the emotional aspects of the character, it can also be used to bring distance and disconnectedness of your character to your readers. The reading, that followed chapter 6, Who’s Telling This Story, the Lady with the Little Dog by Anton Chekhov, uses the third person narrative to allow the reader to have the most amount of clarity with the narrative as a whole rather than clarity with only one perspective which might have resulted with the use of a first person narrative.
ReplyDelete-James Attwood
Personally, I thought that Chapter Six was very interesting and incredibly helpful. I remember that for the most part growing up I only ever really knew about first person and third person narratives. So, for me the section of the chapter that I found most fascinating was those that covered the variations of second person. However, I don’t believe that I’ll be venturing into the use of second person anytime soon; it’s perhaps the least common pov for a reason. As for first person, I’ve written one short story using it and it took a bit more effort than my writing usually does for me. I think that has to do with the fact that I always considered first person inherently intimate though and now seeing LaPlante describe a detached first person narrator I just might explore it again in a future project. Third person, it’s probably what I heard thrown around the most throughout all of high school and was actually sort of encouraged by teachers to write in it primarily. Still, I can’t recall ever being taught the differences in distance that this point of view could portray; I’m already thinking of using a third person limited with an intimate distance, in order to have some sort of outside commentary on my character’s actions.
ReplyDeleteIn Chekhov’s The Lady with the Little Dog my favorite approach to what LaPlante discussed is on page 214, where we’re given a description of Moscow when Gurov returned. In this moment the third person narration begins to merge with what I would suggest Gurov himself is feeling, without actually explicitly stating that “He thought” or “He felt”.
-Joaquin Castillo
I found Chapter Six to be helpful in the way it described the different points of view. I found it helpful especially because I believe every single one of us has felt as if we're only ever taught about first person or third person and any other points of view are only glossed over. Thus, when I was reading the second person point of view section, it was interesting to say the least. I did find sort of the basic overview feeling from the section but I also found that LaPlante did a bit more by explaining WHY the narrative was different and how it could be. I also enjoyed the section over third person narratives but I think that was simply because she added an excerpt of Pride and Prejudice which remains my favorite book but also because reading through it, LaPlante did well in explaining the differences in omniscient and limited third person narratives. The excerpts from both "Pride and Prejudice" and "Hills Like White Elephants" helped me better understand how third person can be different.
ReplyDeleteChekhov's "The Lady With The Little Dog" was told in third person which was probably why it was in the chapter but I found it interesting how it seemed to merge into something else towards the middle of it.
-Angélica De La Cruz
In chapter six, LaPlante went further into detail about the three points of view. She dissected parts such as certain types of first person and third person like first person involved or uninvolved/detached kind that I had never considered before and was able to learn about them through the examples of text. LaPlante even went into depth about the second person stating the different types even though it’s a rarely used point of view in fiction writing which is also something I found quite nice. It reminds me how hard it is to find a second person point of view in fiction writing and how hard and challenging it can be for writers to creatively use this point of view.
ReplyDeleteAs for the story by Anton Chekhov, ‘The Lady with the Little Dog’, in connection to LaPlante’s chapter it is told in limited third person point of view. The story focuses on the main character Dmitri Gurov’s views and opinions while not going into Anna Sergeevna’s thoughts instead using dialogue to voice out her opinions. Overall, the story has a sort of looming gray tone to it perhaps as a reflection to the affair these two characters are having instead of a bubbly pink atmosphere such as one feels when reading a romantic story showing how even the point of view can change the tone of the story. For example, the whole story being told by an outsider who didn’t know the circumstances of Anna and Dmitri might have taught these two were just people who met and fell in love, and the story could have shaped to a nice love story or perhaps it could have been in Anna’s view to further show her conflicting feelings. Whatever the case, the point of view works well in the story.
Sylvia Lopez
LaPlante shows how complex narration really is, its more than just an outside observer in the story. It can be anyone. I have never put much attention to narration on my stories, and I think I usually go with third person most of the time. I also really liked the explanation on third person and the spectrum she gives for it. The narrator can be godlike, an outside observer, or anything in between the two. I guess I this being a challenging point of view for writes because there are a few things you need to look out for, like, is the narrator a know it all, or is simply some who the character may or may not know that is simply telling the story from their point of view. I find it interesting because this allows for so much room to play with, like having a combination of both sides of the spectrum, the narrator may know a lot of things, but not everything from the characters.
ReplyDeleteThe short story was great too, I liked it, I don’t think it is as “dark” as the ones we have read before, it’s a good love story. The ending was great too, and it left me wondering if they were going to kill their families, or simply run away never to be seen away. They just don’t want to have to hide anymore from their partners. Something else I liked from the story is that Anna manages to really be the first woman to haunt Gurov’s mind, it creates a great plot for the story, which really seams to be the main thing. He can’t stop thinking about her, neither can her, so they sneak to see each other. Again, its not a bad story, it was pretty good.
-Alexis Perez
LaPlante’s goes over the different points of view in chapter six. Any time you try writing something, it is important to know which point of view the story is going to be told in. Personally, I know I have a bad habit of starting a story and worrying about the point of view later. The chapter breaks down first, second, and third person as well as what each one entails. Each point of view can accomplish different things, and LaPlante goes into fine detail with examples from popular works of fiction. I never thought about third person point of view as being capable of having a personality and being able to voice their opinions until now. Choosing a point of view can completely change what your story is about, but there is no right or wrong choice. It’s subjective. However, there are pros and cons to each, and each story is going to call for something different. Another thing LaPlante addresses is shifting point of views accidentally which I know I have fallen victim to. With this, she says to either cut out any major switches or, if you can, just get away with. In “The Lady with the Little Dog” by Anton Chekhov, it was told in third person. Had it been told in first person with either of the main character’s perspectives, the story would have been a lot different.
ReplyDelete-Gabriela Urbano
Who would have thought that there is a narrator that differs from the author. It's funny because, I was taught that author and narrator are one. It's funny to think of it as the author being separate from the narrator. It almost doesn't sit right with me. I know the book says that it's only with fiction. It all depends on point of view according to LaPlante. Now I can see that in hind sight. My favorite bit of the chapter is on page 193, "When you have a first person narrator, when you have a character telling a story - no matter how detached or impartial he or she seems to be - it's that persons story." I feel as if I often forget this.
ReplyDelete- Allison Gonzalez
Going through the reading for chapter six this week, I found LaPlante’s section on the point of view to be incredibly helpful, especially for my short story. The categorization of each viewpoint is interesting to see, but I would’ve liked to have seen how you can fuse two views. I do believe that the point of view is essential for the narrative, it’s what the reader can understand. It can add to us caring for the character, or understanding something they don’t. LaPlante brought up a point that I found to be worthy of discussion, the author and character are separate people. They dictate what happens while the author writes it out. That understandable but at times I believe we clash with our characters, some views change for better or worse.
ReplyDeleteThe Lady With The Little Dog was a story that subverted my expectations by going with the third person perspective. In all honesty, I believe if this were in the first person, I would’ve cared for the characters more, due to their situation. I understand they’re in a loveless marriage and now they have a chance to experiment with new people. I would’ve liked to have known their thoughts and what was going on inside of their head. I now realize my complaints with this short story are the critiques I got for my short piece. Oh, how the tables have turned.
- Eloy T Sepulveda
I liked how Chapter Six, “Who’s Telling This Story?” goes beyond the basic definitions of the three points of view in fiction to show us the advantages and disadvantages of using each one. Reading this chapter was very timely for me as I work to revise my short story, especially the section that explains the “variations of limited third person narrators” (198). In my short story that I’m revising, I initially chose third person so that the thoughts and feelings of all the characters in the story could be included. But after reading this chapter, I can see how using a limited third person point of view might be best. Instead of changing the point of view, I need to work on making the distance of the narrator closer. As LaPlante explains, sometimes changing the distance can create the same intimacy that first person narration provides (known as third person intimate) (200).
ReplyDeleteAnton Chekhov’s story, “The Lady with the Little Dog,” is a perfect example of limited third person. The narrator gives us insight into the thoughts and feelings of Gurov that feels almost as close as a first person point of view. We only understand the thoughts and feelings of Anna through dialogue, description of her actions, or from Gurov’s observations. I think Chekhov’s story is a good model for me to follow as I work on my revisions.
-Dorie Garza