Choose one of the following to answer. Please post your response by Sun , 4 p.m.
1) Describe the relationship between the straight and parenthetical passages in Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter." In other words, what is the function of each and how do they function in relation to each other?
2) Analyze an instance of Gellhorn's use of metaphor or simile. Include why she choose this image and whether or not it works and how or why.
17 comments:
The function of the straight passages is to provide insight into how one family, the Hernandez's, deal with the daily grind of war life. These passages allow the reader to develop admiration and sympathy for the family, similar to the way Davis does with Rodriquez in his piece. Martha Gellhorn brings up struggles that the Hernandez family faces everyday, such as finding food, and then transitions that into how the rest of the individuals in the town cope with it in the parenthetical passages. The parenthetical passages provide detailed descriptions of the environment with less dialogue compared to the straight passages. The parenthetical passages offer a broader portrait of the effects of war while the straight passages get more in-depth. For example, the reader finds out that the young grandchild in the Hernandez family wants to be a mechanic. However, specific details like that about the children in the hospital remain unknown. The parenthetical passages show that the war is greatly effecting each and every family, not just the Hernandez's, which makes the message more impacting and effective. These passages also give more of Gellhorn's internal view on what is happening. Gellhorn asks Lola about the opera, and lets Lola give her reasoning for not attending, but then follows that section with a parenthetical one describing her own experience. Without that parenthetical section, the reader would never know that the majority of people go to the opera as a means of escape.
Gellhorn gives another similar example of this when she sees the munitions factory for herself. These examples pause what is happening with the Hernandez family and redirect the reader to a new scene to provide further context so that the reader will better understand what is happening at the Hernandez home. After that pause is over, Gellhorn retreats back to a straight passage and relies heavily on dialogue to tell their story. After reading the story, I do not only feel sympathy for the Hernandez family, but for the whole country for having to endure such horrific living conditions.
Martha Gellhorn paints a picture between her own experiences and that of the Hernandez Family. It's like the story jumps from scene to scene, but the home base for it all is the Hernandez family. The straight passages give the reader a deeper insight into the war and how people were affect by it. She takes the Hernandez' story and kind of generalizes it, but uses specific events or experiences of her own to tie them together, and gives the reader a broader understanding of what's taking place and how people deal with it.
For example, in the straight passage ending on page 426, Gellhorn talks about the pleasure of seeing the Spanish Republican Army, and goes on to say that you couldn't feel sorry for an army like that. Then starting the following parenthetical passage, Mrs. Hernandez is telling Gellhorn about her sons who are soldiers and how she is told by one of them to be strong, because she is like all the other mothers in Spain (whose sons are also away at war). In that same passage, the daughter-in-law talks about her sick baby, and in the following straight passage, Gellhorn mentions the statistics of child suffering there, and about her visit to the hospital and the conditions of the children there. The strategy she uses creates intimacy between the subjects and the readers. It's like she is taking what she learned visiting the Hernandez family and uses it as a way to direct her observations.
One use of metaphor that I took notice of, begins on page 429, ending on page 430, where Gellhorn says that bombers were "flying at a great safe height and sending down indiscriminate, expensive steel-encased death and destruction. I really like this metaphor she uses because it has imagery, and tells the story of what's exactly going on. As we see when she talks about her visit to the hospital, the bombs are indiscriminate because little babies who haven't a reason to be bombed are. These bombs, which I imagine were expensive, have brought death and destruction to Spain.
As we talked about in the previous class, it takes a lot of skill to enhance the reader's experience enough to make them feel empathy towards the characters. Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter" mastered this task through her use of passages throughout the work. The straight passages focused on the main characters, the Hernandez family. It focused on their personal story and struggle. Their struggle is then put into context by means of the parenthetical passages. Gellhorn provides detailed descriptions of the bigger picture, giving the reader a greater sense of insight into the war. The Hernandez family can therefore act as a metaphor for the current condition of the country. The issues of this one family were illuminated as she told the history in the parenthetical passages. I captured a lot of what Tanique had responded in her post. Gellhorn would tell a scene from the Hernandez family, followed by a passage of the generalized statistic occurring throughout. I feel like her method of doing this was very successful and her use of literary journalism truly made a difference in the impact it had on the reader. For instance, perhaps she had merely written about the war using just the parenthetical passages. It would have been bland, unemotional and less significant. By providing both the general story as well as the personal hardships of a particular family, it gave depth and emotion. The reader is now able to pick apart the statistic and put a name to it-- a face to it. While I was reading it, it almost felt the commentary as I was watching a movie. As each scene of the Hernandez family would pass, Gellhorn would add in more description of the setting, history and even some of her own experiences.
Martha Gellhorn, in "The Third Winter" says in her piece, "It was cold but really too lovely and everyone listened for the sirens all the time, and when we saw the bombers they were like tiny silver bullets moving forever up, across the sky." I think the author compares the bombers to tiny silver bullets because bullets represent and symbolize death and destruction.I think Gellhorn used the image of bullets because when a bullet is shot from a gun, the movement and action happens so fast. When a bomb drops, I can imagine everything happening suddenly so fast and quick like bullets from a gun. One moment the person has their finger on a trigger and the next moment someone is dead. For a bomb, one moment you see it soaring through the sky and the next moment, there is destruction and casualities. The movement of a bullet is swift just like a bombers. I feel the image she choose was appropriate because the bomb flowing like silver bullets through the sky represents the results the thousands of families suffering with sons fighting out in the war and children in hospitals, with fragments wounded in their bodies. The imagery of the bullet, compared to the bombers, solidifies the idea of death and suffering, which is one the most prominent components in her story.
Martha Gellhorn is capable of taking the reader from one place to another with her words. She takes the reader from standing beside her in the Hernandez household to the children's hospital, then back to the Hernandez household and then to store watching women get food for their families. Each change with scenery relates to the other. Gellhorn was talking about Lola's baby, mentioning how sick the baby looks like, and connecting that to the children's hospital she visited. In the hospital, she talks about the children suffering from tuberculosis and recovering from the severe wounds received from the bombings. The parenthetical passages also give the reader a better understanding of what Gellhorn is thinking and seeing because it is coming from her point of view, rather than just the dialogue with the Hernandez family. But the passages do give us an inside look at what daily life is like for any family in Spain during the war, like the Hernandez family. Gellhorn tells us the hardship of simply getting food from the local store and getting a sick child medicine. Without the parenthetical passages, the reader could not fully understand the hardships the Hernandez family faces on a daily basis.
Gellhorn strategically uses straight and parenthetical passages in “The Third Winter.” Each function very differently, but come together to make a cohesive piece.
The Hernandez family is described through the straight passages, whereas Gellhorn uses commentary through the parenthetical passages. By doing such, she allows more insight into her story. Her parenthetical passages allow for expansion of knowledge that otherwise would have been ignored. This engages the reader greatly; Gellhorn makes her readers feel like they are getting an exclusive piece of knowledge that the Hernandez family does not know.
Gellhorn weaves the two passages together beautifully. I agree with Liana when she said that Gellhorn “enhanced the reader’s experience enough to make them feel empathy towards the characters” by using two passages in one story.
Gellhorn's use of parenthetical statements fitted in between the narrative serves as a link between what the family is experiencing and what the country is living through. Her constant switching back and forth between the two help to break the mold between reality and storytelling.
On page 430, Gellhorn writes about the Hernandez' daughter and says she is wealthy because she works at a munitions factory. After that, a parathentical statement is inserted to widen the scope on what is happening around Spain in those munition factories. Without this piece of writing weaves in, it wouldn't have as much of an impact on the reader because of how specified the story is.
I think Gellhorn's story of the family is amazing and sounds more like a narrative while the paranthetical statements added have more of a "newsy" feel. However, they couldn't stand as separate works by themselves because the reader might not understand how bad the bombings were without the parantheticals, and taking out the story of the family would eliminate the personal and empathetic quality to her piece.
My favorite metaphor Gellhorn used was when she was in the medical ward with the children. She says on page 428, "[The mother] took a pot from some pocket, it materialized like a rabbit from a hat, and gave it to the child, and said, "Here, eat." I believe used this simile because of the simplicity and cliche appropriateness of it. Food seemed to be the one thing that made the bad and destruction and depression fade---like magic. It was those moments of magic that would take away the pain and suffering that made everything better. As simple as it sounds this is the perfect simile to compare the mother too. She's her sons savior and source nourishment---it only makes sense for her to be magical as well.
Gellhorn uses the parenthetical references to illustrate how intensely tragic the situation for the Spaniards really was. If she had only written about her visit to the Hernandez’ home, the only side the reader would be presented with is that of a family that is either too naïve to understand the severity of the war or one that is in too much denial to admit that Lola’s baby will most likely die, that Federico will very possibly be lost to the war and that they could very well all starve to death. I think she also uses the short passages about the Hernandez family to give the story a more relatable quality. Even the scene about the children in the hospital is enough to leave a reader feeling completely emotionally destitute, but added in with the scenes about the starving citizens and the munitions factory, and the story becomes completely exhausting to experience. Adding in the bits about the Hernandez family concentrates boils the story down into something less overwhelming and more relatable, allowing the reader to not only feel sympathy towards the situation, but to also be able to feel a more specific tie to the characters. With the passages combined, you can understand the spectrum of suffering that the Spaniards were facing while also rooting for Miguel to become a mechanic and for Mrs. Hernandez to be able to make her huge victory feast after they “win the war.”
I agree with many of the people who have posted before me about the relationship between the straight and parenthetical passages.
Gelhorn does a really great job allowing the reader to really see and understand what was going on in Spain during the war. Her words and language, especially during the passages with dialogue are extremely descriptive. As I was reading, I could see what she saw. I felt as though I was there and my heart was aching for the children described in the hospitals and the Hernandez family.
The passages with the dialogue allowed us to see the daily life of families that were living in Spain during the war. We were able to hear what the characters had to say about what they were witnessing firsthand. A "normal" or standard hard news story would never have had the same effect on a person as these passages did.
I think that the passages that followed the ones centered around the Hernandez family gave the piece as a whole a more newsy feel.
The passages together worked to create a news story that evoked feelings from the reader. The story became real while still giving facts.
The interesting thing about Martha Gellhorn’s trip to the ammunition factory was that to make it more relatable to the reader, I felt she transformed the passage into an on-going metaphor. This technique was to explain each stage of production; segment the factory tour to relate it to peace time activities. For example, the explosive powder resembled sequence, and that deadly sequence was being put into satchels made of fabric that could have been used for summer-time wear. Since winter seems like a season that can drag on, the implication being that Gellhorn is saying the fabric won’t see the summer light because it’s going to the war effort. In another life, this fabric could have made “handsome shirts, a thick white silk for a bridal gown.”
Also, the way these women were putting these things together, it seemed surreal. As if these women were tailors, they were mesmerized by something as deadly as the explosive, sequence-like powder and they “daintily” and elegantly glued together parts for the construction of a mortar; Gellhorn juxtaposes such images nicely, something pretty with something gritty and cold. It’s also interesting to see the process behind the construction of war supplies. Gellhorn went on to describe the damaged guns, returning home. These were described as “huge gray strangely shaped animals” come to rest; here, Gellhorn gives them life, as if they were actually exhausted from the battle. The metaphor here is the factory represents beauty during wartime; intricate processes to build these things that only kill.
If I were to focus on one simile throughout the story, it would be “and her voice was as harsh as stone scrapping on stone.” At first, I thought it was a lazy one, to compare an object to itself, but then to think about it, it sends this message that the voice was utterly terrible. Nothing about that description makes me think this boy’s mother is sweet or nurturing. Maybe the war has turned her bitter, but the way it’s written makes it seem like she was always this way. Gellhorn really knows how to turn the reader against a character.
1) Gellhorn uses straight and parenthetical passages to compliment her reporting during the third winter in the Spanish Civil War. The straight passages tells the story of one family and the affects the war has had on them. The audience knows there is a shortage of food and widespread of sickness, and an overbearing fear of bombings on a daily basis, because this family is going through it all. The parenthetical passages offer these views in a much larger perspective. Gellhorn isn't just observing the family, but the horrors society is facing because of it.
The first straight passage shows that despite living in such squalor and famine, the Hernandez family still survives, and how even though it is a hardship there are still better things on the horizon.
The parenthetical passage seceding it gives a historical context to the current conditions. The parenthetical passages have more of newsworthy feel that would be printed it textbooks.
Every one of the Hernandez family problems is linearly set to a problem on a large scale. Lola Hernandez' baby is sick, Gellhorn visits the child's pavilion at a hospital to see the wounded and sick children as a result of the war. Lola's baby may have never been in a bombing, but her illness is a result of the war.
I thought it was interesting in Gellhorn's reporting that she included what people liked to do leisurely, such a go to the movies or opera.
The Hernandez' only daughter is successful and making money due to the war. Gellhorn followed that up with a parenthetical passage about how women were dealing with such dangerous compounds, yet the materials were also strangely beautiful.
I think that the purpose of the parenthetical and the straight passages in Martha Gellhorn’s story is to show to the greater picture of the war and it’s effect on the people and she uses the Hernandez family to demonstrate these effects on a smaller scale. Gellhorn is in the home of the Hernandez’s having a conversation with each member of the family and different parts of the conversation triggers her mind to recall something that she saw. The straight parts of the story are written in the present and they are mostly all dialogue and the parenthetical parts are scenes that she recalls. For example, when Gellhorn sees Lola’s baby and how sick she is, it triggers Gellhorn to recall a scene in a hospital filled with sick children and the statistics surrounding the amount of famished and under nourished children there are in Catalina. She goes on to write about how most of the children are pale and wounded from the bombings. The dialogue she has with the family is interjected by the parenthetical passages of an experience she had that relates to the family. I think all the parenthetical passages show the larger influence of the war.
One of my favorite uses of a simile in this story is on page 425, when she writes, “Old Mrs. Hernandez nodded her head, which was like a fine worn wood carving.” From this, I had an image in my head of Mrs. Hernandez with her skin the dark and old color of worn wood and her wrinkles were like the grain running through the wood. I think this image works because her worn skin and wrinkles could be a sign of stress from the war and that the she and everyone else don’t have the resources to keep up their appearences or they do not care about their appreances because they are too consumed with the war.
2) When Gellhorn is describing the women making weapons, I was able to grab a very visual image that works well. Lines like on page 430, "There were other trays full of shining little leads, like short fillers for an automatic pencil. The woman picked up a handful of the sequins and let them slip through her hands." Comparing the explosive powder to the harmless lead pencil filings is a strong juxtaposition. I think Gellhorn used this to show how strange wars can be. She made nods to Spain's beautiful architecture elsewhere in the writing, and so it makes it feel weird that destructive bombs with the aim to kill and demolish would hail on such a beautiful place.
Gellhorn uses the straight and parenthetical passages to compare her observations with the Hernadez and life in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. I agree with what people have written before; the straight passages brings the readers into the lives of that family, creating a sympathetic feeling. The parenthetical passages act as both transitions and as an explanation to why the Gellhorn chooses to include certain details of the Hernadez family. For example, on page 426 the top describes the Spanish Army, and then the straight paragraph mentions Mrs. Hernandez talk about her two boys who were soldiers. The straight paragraph then continues to talk about a girl named Lola who is weak and famished. Gellhorn then follows with a parenthetical paragraph to describe the children's ward at the hospital. Gellhorn's use of parenthetical and straight passages takes the readers back in time and has them experience every detail of life during the war.
1) The Third Winter is a description of the depressed times during the war. The parenthetical descriptions are on a broad scale while the straight passages describe specific instances of struggle. The straight passages make the reader see, feel, and understand the hard times in an intimate setting, describing one family. ‘”What do you do all day?” I said. “I stand in the food line.”’ They ten-year-old boy speaks about his experience standing in the food line for hours in order to help his starving family. The parenthetical remind the reader that not just one or two families are affected, but the entire country is suffering. “The pinched women file into the shop and hand their food cards over the high bare counter.” This section shows people, without telling names, ages, or where they’re from, waiting in line for food. However, their rations are described in full detail: a cigarette-sized package full of rice to last two people for two weeks, fish the size of a finger for one person meant to last two weeks etc.
2) “The old-faced doll reached out a tiny white hand.” In this metaphor a seventeen-month-old child is being described. It’s effective because of its chilling description. “Old-faced” refers to the struggle the child has been though. She is sick and has been through more conflict in her few months of existence than most have seen in a lifetime. Because of this, she appears old. The “white” of her skin is a result of her lack of nutrition. This child represents the majority of children living at this time; sick and malnourished. They will most likely die because there is not enough resources to cure them.
Gellhorn gives us detail of the lives of those living during a war, the constant struggle and how they deal with it. Her use of simile allows the reader to really get the comparison being made. One example is where she compares the citizens, the women, men, and children living in the area to soldiers. Why? Due to the fact that with war, it brings a certain routine to their lives but at the same time, anything can happen at any moment. They do their tasks, getting food (when it is scarce,) they recognize the sounds of the bombs and drones. As they scatter about to seek refuge, they do it professionally like soldiers in order to get their tasks (staying safe) done. She also compares the children in the hospital to toys. This brings the image of children remaining still like toys on the hospital beds, children that were all wounded. Using metaphor, she also compares one sick child to an "old-faced doll," to show that the child is fragile like a doll but old-faced because of the malnutrition from lack of food. While admiring the shells in the factory, she compares the moment in time to a "dream or nightmare or joke when the siren whined out over Barcelona." The moment is a dream or nightmare or joke because it all seems so unreal. One doesn't know really know what will happen.
Gellhorn's use of straight and paranthetical passages manages to not only shed light on the life of one family during the war, but of the entire society. This makes it possible to gain an understanding of the widespread effects, as well as put a face to that which is being described. In some ways it's as if Gellhorn is zooming in with the straight passages, and panning back out for the parenthetical sections.
Weaving between these two forms is extremely effective. For instance, Gellhorn introduces the Hernandez family, and it is revealed that Miguel stands in food lines for his family. The next paragraph goes directly into describing these food lines, and really digging into how little there is, even saying that people may wait in line all day only to have the shop close as soon as they reach the front. I found that this parenthetical section was much more effective after meeting Miguel and knowing that even at such a young age he was forced to deal with this type of poverty and starvation. In other words, putting a face to the problem definitely makes the consequences seem more real.
Gellhorn continues this method after first describing Lola's sick baby, and following it with the starving and wounded children in the hospital. By doing so, she gives a very specific, personal instance of a child suffering and follows it with the discomforting knowledge that hundreds of thousands of children are in even worse positions.
This piece has a very unique quality to it that makes it both intimate and obvious. The experiences of the people range from in their own private homes to public streets. Gellhorn utilizes both of these types of environments to put the pain and struggling of one family into an even greater, country-wide, context.
Post a Comment