This course is a large focus on the others of society and how writers depict them in their novels, movies, plays, etc. But one interesting thing to think about is in what setting did the author decide to place the character, and why. These characters that we are learning about are really only outsiders in the places that they are in. Given the right situation, these characters would just be an average person of a society. For example, take the Indian father of the first short story and change his race to that of a white man and compare him to the many others that have walked out on their families, as the story suggested, and his story is not all that much different on a general scale than that of the others. Or in a similar way you can change the place and get the same result happens. If the author of "A Rose for Emily" had Emilies life end in the small southern town, but in a mental institution after someone had found out what happened, then she is no longer an other because she ends up surrounded by other people who are just like her in some way or another and she then enters the norm.
So why does the author put these characters in these odd places that don't suit them. Why not put them in a place where they fit in? This answer is different for each story. In Slumdog Millionaire, why isn't Jamal instead a person who rises from nothing in America? Why is he placed specifically in India? In this case one answer might be that it becomes more inspirational because there are far less people who are able to do this in India where social classes are meant to stay seperated whereas in America, economic growth is a supported idea. Or in Bartlby the Scrivner, why is such a peculiar man placed in the job he is? One answer could be simply to add comedy, or another to give a simbolism of death and silence.
So my question to anyone who may so choose is to explain your characters in your novels of the different groups. Why did the author of your book choose to place the other in whatever situation they are in. In the Perks of Being a Wallflower, Charlie, the main character is an out of the ordinary kid who does not always connect all the dots, and as he rights down what happens to him in letters, questions or things he wonders about are clear to the reader and I think that is why he is here. So that the reader can see some of the innocence that he has in not knowing exactly what is going on.
I'm guessing that the entire point IS that they're outsiders. It's this sense of an outsider, that something out of the ordinary, which makes an author or storyteller share this story. Look at any story shared with friends, and you will realize that it's because something different happened to make it note-worthy.
ReplyDeleteAnd one thing that may lure the authors to share these moments of loneliness is that everyone feels it one point or another, and we all feel despair. I'd actually call it inhumane to never feel alone at some point or another (paradoxical, right?).
I think that authors for the most part include outsiders in their stories to point out the falts of the norm. If everyone was the same, we would never realize that the norm may not be perfect and that it needs to be changed. This isn't always the case since, in stories like A Rose for Emily, the outsider has nothing better to offer to the norm, but I think this is generally true.
ReplyDeleteIn the Hunger Games, the main character is an outsider in the sense that she is the only one who opposes a tyrannical government that is widely accepted as the norm. The government is cruel and needs to be changed, and the main character allows us to see that. Without her, we as readers may just accept the government just as most of the citizens in the book did without an outsider to follow.