So far in the novel, “The Cellist of Sarajevo”, four different characters have been narrating their day to day lives during the siege of Sarajevo. Having the story told by different characters is a very effective way of describing the setting and the characters at the same time. The narrations of their experience and experiences during the war show you two different things. First you get to see the differences between these characters experiences. Seeing how these people react differently in a time of war, tells you a lot about what defines them as unique individuals. Having one of the four narrators being a sniper for the defenders really shows you their contrasting characters. What’s equally important is the similarities between the characters. This tends to tell you more about the setting than the characters themselves. It gives you a good idea of what the general population is experiencing during this time of war. Clearly this is a great way to reveal aspects of each character, while describing the setting at the same time.
One thing that really has stood out for me is how the main characters seem to not care about the politics of the situation anymore. They all just want the war to be over, so they can start trying to build back what they can of their normal lives. Even the sniper isn’t fighting for her country; she is simply killing those who are “robbing people of the gift of knowing how wonderful life can be”. They have all lost too much to even be concerned with anything but surviving the next few minutes, and hoping for a better life. In addition to this all the characters describe the struggle to move anywhere, since snipers have nearly every street in their sights. These two things describe quite effectively what it is like to live in a city under constant attack.
Dearest Morgrom,
ReplyDeleteI think you are making excellent points (I particularly like your thoughts on war in the second paragraph), but you are not using language as an aid. Consider the fluidity of the words (I read it aloud when I'm finished). For example, you say there are two points, and you say "firstly", but you never follow up with the "secondly." Also think about the way you combine words-it seems like maybe you're thinking sentence by sentence instead of idea by idea. Also, you use to many commas (bitch.)
Overall, it seems like maybe you're overthinking content and underthinking language, but good job.
Dear Morgan,
ReplyDeleteI really liked the content of the response. You provided references to your points which I felt supported the response to give the me a better understanding of the content in your novel. I would agree with Megan though on fluidity. The only reason I say that is because within two sentences you say the word "experience(s)" 3 times, becomes a bit tedious to read. Otherwise great response!
Morhas,
ReplyDeleteGood points and observations. I would say use the text more by talking about specific techniques in the language; you say "Having the story told by different characters is a very effective way of describing the setting and the characters at the same time" which is a good point, but showing the way it's effective (specific examples of how different characters reacted to the same event, or examples to show how we gain more from understanding different aspects, etc.) would strengthen it and force you to make precise statements. However, you're clearly thinking deeply about the theme behind the events and ideas.
Supportive and wise comments from your supporters, Morgan, though I caution one of them to avoid using the "b" word in the comments. I'd like to see some sense of what you anticipate next in the novel. Where do you think it's going? Your tone is good along with the clear sense of personal engagement.
ReplyDeleteI like you morgan.
ReplyDelete