Fiction

This is the paper that I was doing while I am sick! Spare some mercy for me Heavens!
By the way, this is also the paper that ended our fiction discussion in Humanities I.

1. How was foreshadowing employed in “?”?

Foreshadowing was employed in ? through the emphasis of different elements that were proven to be vital as the story goes and on and most especially, during the story’s end part. These foreshadowing elements were introduced immediately during the first part of the story. Clearly, the foreshadowing technique lacks proper logic initially. But it proves to be indeed logical after which the elements are introduced. The element first introduced was the sign that Harris did something fishy prior to the beginning of the story. It was done through the silent talking of Harris and the frog where the frog witnessed the events that took place before hand. The second element is the blood sample with Harris’ name on the inscription. The reader would assume that it is Harris’ job to manage the whole blood samples found in the refrigerator. But it is quite weird that Harris’ own blood sample is present therein. The last element (I believe) is the discussion between Harris and Dr. Vaughn. Clearly, the pathologist and the technician’s discussion is about a crime that Harris could be a suspect. The parts of the story after the introduction of these foreshadowing elements already incorporated the said elements onto those parts. That is how I draw the demarcation line between the foreshadowing part and parts after it.

1. Name two characters from two different stories who are each other’s mirror OR foil.

I believe that Chauncey Harris of “?” and Ben of “The Storm” are mirror characters. They are mirror characters due to three reasons: First, they both did “perfect” crimes (It could have been perfect!). If my wild assumptions are correct, Ben killed the woman in the cellar. He has done a lot of efforts to make the crime perfect and to make himself innocent of the “crime”. He have done these through removing the woman in the cellar and making Janet believe that all of the things that have happened prior to his “arrival” are mere product of Janet’s imagination. Whereas, Harris made alibis to make himself be acquitted of the “crime” that happened in the hospital. In relation to these “perfect” crimes, it could have been really perfect if the “key to the crime” was just left untouched and unused. For Ben, the key to the crime is the ring whereas, for Chauncey, it is the blood sample. Quite surprisingly, their fate is not in favor with them. The keys to the crimes are both preserved. Second, both of them have external conflicts. These external conflicts are both personalities who are killed by them. For Ben, his external conflict is with the “girl” which is found dead in the cellar. The conflict could be the blackmailing of the girl to Ben through the letters that he is receiving. Whereas, Harris’s external conflict is with Tony. Harris is insecure with Tony as a relatively holistic person and Tony is always teasing Harris about almost everything. Add to the fact that Harris is not that approved with Tony’s marriage to his sister. Third, both of them are “accused” of the crime. With Ben’s case, he is “accused” through Janet’s realization that Ben could have killed the girl she found in the cellar. While for Chauncey, he WOULD be “accused” after the transfusion of the incompatible blood to him.

1. What difference would it make had the narration of The Storm been taken from Ben’s perspective? Would it have been as effective in employing suspense? What explanations would have been provided to help solve the mystery?

I can feel that if the story is taken from Ben’s perspective, the readers’ impression of the story would be really different. The most evident difference would be the efficacy of the story’s employment of suspense. It is due to the fact that the “artifacts” or the “clues” would be no longer as they should be. These clues are made to be as vague as possible. Vagueness, I believe, is a factor for a suspenseful story. But apparently, this factor would be logically connected to all the personalities and situations in the story. When the story is taken from Ben’s perspective, the story, which should be suspenseful, defeats its purpose to be so. This is because the logic will be immediately shown upon Ben’s actions.

Explanations about the logical relationship of the different artifacts and clues presented in the story could have been provided to solve the mystery. The following could have been explained: 1) Ben’s possession of the ring originally found on the dead woman. 2) The relationship of Ben and the dead woman. 3) The relationship of the mysterious letters to Ben and to the dead woman. 4) The contents of the mysterious letters. 5) And Janet’s substantiated reactions upon seeing the ring on Ben’s finger.

1. How was indirect character development employed in Rain? Choose 1 character and give your general impression of him/her. Quote lines from the text that illustrates he/she was depicted as such.

Indirect character development (ICD) in Rain was employed through the conversations between characters. One example is the conversation between Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Macphail. This is when the reader could “feel” that Mrs. Davidson seems to a little arrogant by debunking Dr. Macphail’s observations (Excerpt 2). ICD was also employed through a character’s perspective of another character. An example would be Davidson’s perspective about Fred Ohlson (Excerpt 9). Lastly, ICD is employed through a character’s thoughts. An example would be Mrs. Macphail’s though/assumption of she and her husband were the only people on board with whom the Davidsons are willing to associate with (Excerpt 1).

My character of choice is Mrs. Davidson. I felt hating her. My general impression of her is she is an arrogant woman.

“Ours are low islands, you know, not like these” (Mrs. Davidson)

“Well, that’s a rather exaggerated way of putting it” (Mrs. Davidson)

“You don’t wonder that I couldn’t tell you myself, do you? Even though you are a doctor” (Mrs. Davidson)

“Mrs. Davidson scanned his face. She had a dramatic eagerness to see that she had achieved the desired effect” (Narration)

“Mrs. Davidson gave him a quick look through her pince-nez, but did not answer his question” (Nararation)

“It’s a very indecent costume” (Mrs. Davidson)

“Not good style at all” (Mrs. Davidson)

1. Where lies the irony in ?, Rain, The Storm and Use of Force?

In “?”, the irony lies on Chauncey’s fortune. Chauncey made alibis that would not make him a suspect in the crime. His alibis were very credible that even the pathologist who made the surgery eventually accepted Chauncey’s alibis. It is ironic in the sense that it is really unexpected that thing happened to Tony would also be the thing that will happen to Chauncey. In line with this, it is also ironic that Chauncey, the great medical technologist he is, will be a victim of the crime he also did.

In “Rain”, the simplest and most evident irony is the nature of the Davidsons themselves. They are missionaries and are supposed to behave in the manner according to their profession. But in the story, they are not. Davidsons are arrogant and self-righteous people who think highly of themselves. They use their profession to reach their wants without worrying about its adverse effects.

In “The Storm”, the irony lies on the storm itself. The storm, as part of the setting of the story, added to the thrills and suspense happening inside the house. The storm’s activities like thundering, swooshing of different objects like branches of trees and breaking of window glasses, frightened Janet more. But at the end of the story, the storm served as a refuge for Janet because she felt safer with it than with Ben.

Lastly, In “Use of Force”, the irony lies in the relationship of the doctor and Mathilda (the patient). In common doctor-patient relationships, they could be considered as superior-subordinate relationships. Patients conform to the doctors’ standards and mechanisms and the patients are just to follow. But in the case of the doctor in the story and Mathilda, since they are mirror characters, they tend to fight for the superior role—Mathilda is challenging the doctor by disobeying his requests or commands.

This work by Alfred Miguel M. Aguado is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.