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?
During Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter" she decides to not simply tell the story through one scene with the same characters. Instead, she tells her story with main characters (Hernandez's family)and after every few paragraphs she includes parenthetical passages with other minor characters. She does this in order to give more depth to the story and give the reader a better understanding of what she is experiencing. Each parenthetical paragraph section goes into detail of the information presented in the previous paragraph. For example, on page 425 Hernandez briefly states how the war is so horrible and he doesn't even care about it anymore. The following paragraph goes into detail about the war and the roles that certain people play during it. Another example is on 426 when Lola was explaining how her child isn't healthy because she doesn't have the proper food to eat. Following this statement, Gellhorn goes into detail about children in the hospital and how they aren't getting proper nutrition either. The main focus for Gellhorn to use these parenthetical paragraphs is to give some more meat to the story, giving the reader a deeper inside to the way the war was really like those days.
I believe when Gelhorn was writing this story, the entire time she kept in mind how exactly she was going to get the reader to not only see but feel exactly what she experiences in a way that is still empathetic. Gelhorn wants the reader to if not see, truly understand what and how horrible this war was. The way she does this is by using the parenthetical passages and the characters. Although the story has minor characters, it really is all about the Hernandez family whom are the main characters and majority of who the story is about. The opening of the story is a great example, “In Barcelona, it was perfect bombing weather.” Statements like this and other sentences throughout really makes the reader stand back and just say “whoa!” well, at least that’s what it did for me. Gelhorn was able to capture the mercilessness of exactly how this war was and at the same time write in a way that is still compassionate and understanding. I believe this is how and why she uses parenthetical and straight passages. And they function in this way to portray both feelings to the reader.
Gellhorn alternates between straight passages(in the moment, dialogue-ridden moments) with parenthetical passages(reflections and almost thinking in her head) to create a uniquely personal yet detached article. She uses the individual characters of the Hernandez's to create personalities the reader can relate to and see the war through their eyes and experiences. Pairing this with Gellhorn's own first-hand experiences at the hospital, food line and opera provides more general information that allows the reader to grasp a deeper understanding of the underlying issues and enhances the scenes with the Hernandez's. It's almost as if Gellhorn manages to tell two stories in one. Both are technically about the same thing, the war, but yet are vastly different in their primary focus and style. They build off each other to create one story that has deeper components and shows the war in all its different sides. It combines the social, economic, political and humane elements of the war and how they are interrelated.
The structure of this story is sort of like that of the bob marley poster that I'm sure most everyone has seen. His face is made up of a collage of thousands of really small images. In a similar way, the whole of the story (the war) is made up of a hundreds of thousands of stories. Every aspect Gellhorn mentioned, the Hernandez family, the children in the hospital, the hospital building, the opera and the theater and those who attend, all contribute to form an image of the war that Gellhorn wanted to portray; one of "sacrifice and pathos," according to the introduction to the story. Gellhorn's use of traveling through time, always returning to the present, gives the story a narration. Without this push and pull, it would merely be a story of scenes. But instead, we travel with Gellhorn and experience the things she has through her words.
The structure this story is written in, gave me the idea of a movie. The way all the paragraphs go fluently over to the next one, makes it easy readable and imaginable. The straight passages, the paragraphs that tells about the Hernández family give a ‘one moment situation’. That is the place where the ‘movie’ starts. Gellhorn walks over to the families house and then the ‘story’ begins. These scenes give you an idea about what the war does to this family and probably many more families with them. How is the situation and how do people think, react and talk about things? The parenthetical passages gives us an idea about the situation in bigger ‘communities’ as the hospital, opera, theaters and factories. It gives you a bigger view on how the war influences people’s live. Why do they do what they do? Why do they go to the opera? Because it makes them forget the situation that they are in. The way these two passages are used with each other reminds me of a movie. The scene of the family naturally rolls into a scene of an experience of Gellhorn. And because it is describes very clear, I could see the movie in my head. For example on page 426. In the beginning of the paragraph they talk about the sons of the family. They are in the army and one of them just visited home. In the end of the paragraph they look at the baby in Lola’s arms. The paragraph that follows is about the children in the hospital. She describes all the details and tells why these kids are in the hospital. I could really imagine what the hospital would have looked like and how Gellhorn would have felt when she was there. I think she does that really good in every paragraph. I think this story made the war, or any war, come really close. You really get an idea about what this war meant to people and I guess that was the goal of Gellhorn with this story.
Martha Gellhorn used straight and parenthetical passages throughout "The Third Winter" to separate the small personal story of the Hernandez family from the broad overview of life during a brutal war. In the straight passages, the brief stories about the Hernandez family's struggles efficiently illustrate the problems that most Spaniards were dealing with during the war. She used this family to provide a specific example of the focus of her literary piece, which is the vast problems throughout Spain that are described in detail in the parenthetical passages. The two passages complement each other well. The parenthetical passages explain the current situation in Spain, which allows the reader to clearly understand what is going on there. If she did not include this information, it would be much more difficult for the reader to comprehend the situation. The straight passages on the Hernandez family adds color and more voices to the story as a whole. These passages show how a family was directly affected by the war.
Gellhorn uses parenthetical side stories to describe the overall plight of what Hernandez and his family are going through at the time of the war. Though things can be alluded to in the main story (the lack of food, the child not being allowed to go to school, and the daughter coming home from working in the factory) they are better emphasized when Gellhorn tells her first-person account of actually experiencing what is alluded to (the people in line at the market, the children sick or wounded in the hospital, the people at work in the factory when the electricity is cut).
Without these parenthetical side-stories, Gellhorn's overall story would be weakened. Though her interactions with the Hernandez family draw sympathy from the reader, it is not fully expressed until the reader experiences what the Hernandez family goes through and fears on a daily basis. To echo what kimmy said, it is exactly like that ridiculous Bob Marley poster we've all seen--small pictures (like the picture of the Hernandez family) that make up the overall picture (the plight that all of the nameless people are going through at the time of the war).
In Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter" Gellhorn uses parenthetical passages interlaced with straight dialog passages allowing her to not only show the facts about the war but further explain them in detail. With this method Gellhorn can take her experiences with the Hernandez's family and relate them to other aspects of the war, broadening the topic further then to just one specific family. This literary device is quite effective in that Gellhorn can talk about the war as a whole in her parenthetical passages, as well as further prove her parenthetical passages with the use of the dialog from the Hernandez family. At first I didn't even notice there was a difference between the bits of dialog and the paragraphs in the parenthesis. It all read smoothly, like a screen play of a movie would from scene to scene. This is a very effective method of incorporating dialog and details all into one piece.
I think that the narrative of the Hernandez family, currently happening is shaped by the larger context of the problem, past experiences in Spain, which is left in the parentheses. Gellhorn relates this family's story to Spain's status as a country: fractured, unsanitary, barren and desperate. But she also relates the strength of the family to many others. It seems that the young daughter-in-law is being compared to the nurse and that Gellhorn imagines the sons at war to be similiar to the soldiers she met earlier. It is definitely an effective way to tell this kind of story. She uses both the intimacy of the family and the scary images she encounters in other situations to tell a well-rounded and detailed story about the state of Spain.
I really enjoyed the way that Gellhorn set up this story. It was interesting to read about personalized stories contrasted with an overview of what was going on in the country as a whole in her parenthetical paragraphs. Like a few other people I was also reminded of a movie while reading the piece. I've always liked when a writer, in a piece like this or in a film, goes from one scene into another and then back to the original scene, which Gellhorn does a couple of times during this story.
One of my favorite parts of the story was when Gellhorn writes about people going to the movies for fun and to take their minds off of things only to have the power go out because of bombings. The best part of it, for me, was how she notes that the people, being so used to the bombing, were more excited and thrilled by the film than the prospect of death that they face on a constant basis.
Big and small. Throughout "The Third Winter," Gellhorn's sympathy, empathy and respect for the people of Barcelona is clearly illustrated. Because of her deep admiration for them and in turn for the Hernandez's, the focus of the story is always supposed to be on the effects and consequences of war to the families,people, and life of Barcelona. The parenthetical vignettes are like the war itself, fragmented scenes of tense calm and quiet horror. They are meant to let the reader feel and see how living in this area, at this time, as one of these people might feel. In the end, they are with parenthesis which delineate side notes and something other then what the main story is about. Although these scenes are vital to the story, I believe Gellhorn also wants to illustrate the strength of the Hernandez's as a critical point of the story, marking their strength both human and heroic. The parenthetical scenes in the end serve to highlight the bigger picture of the people effected by war, who all to often become numbered casualties in the fragmented and insane backdrop of war.
The straight passages connect to form a complete narrative. The parenthetical passages interrupt that narrative to bring us to a separate setting. They offer insight into the paragraphs before it, almost like narrative footnotes. I think this is an effective way of illustrating the war and making it more real. By using the parenthetical passages to expand on an image, Gelhorn revels how connected these people, the children and strangers, really are. She shows us how the war affects those not just on an individual level, but on a societal level as well. They also allow us to “see” more of the story and get background information as we read along, instead of dividing the piece into several distinct sections.
In Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter," she offsets the straight passages with parenthetical passages. She uses the straight passages to investigate the Hernandez family and show a close up of what one normal family went through on a daily basis. They had Spanish pride, they had faith that their country would win the war. They all endured many hardships for the war but it was okay because it was for good of the country. Gellhorn uses the parenthetical passages to show the bigger picture of the war. She uses the images to show dying children which creates a sympathy for the families and the characters but also uses the images from the munition factory to portray the feeling of calmness and composure. Everyone expects the bombs and everything is so routine that nobody really notices anymore. The two types of scenes work very well together in order to make a complete picture of the war for Gellhorn's readers.
In “The Third Winter” Martha Gellhorn uses the parenthetical passages to paint a larger picture of the effects of the war. Her straight passages are more about her personal experiences with the Hernandez family. The fact that the parenthetical passages dealt with the same topic of conversation she had with Hernandez family made their conversations much more meaningful. What she talks about with the family stays with you as Gellhorn takes you into other scenes. As I read the passage about the hospital I was constantly thinking about Lola’s baby not getting the care that she needed. The fact that she doesn’t jump around from one topic to another makes the story read so smoothly. The way she alternates between straight passages and parenthetical passages made me picture a camera zooming in and out of a scene. In her conversations with the Hernandez family we were told so much about how this one family was suffering, but when she zooms out we get to see how Spain as a whole was suffering. Both the parenthetical and the straight passages are necessary in order to really understand the state of the country during the war. By zooming in and out Gellhorn gives you the complete story two very different ways.
When I was reading this story, it almost felt like I was reading a screenplay. The difference between the straight and parenthetical passages were the difference between what you can see, or read and the background information and scenery that is present in a movie that doesn't always make its way into text clearly. I think that Gellhorn did a great job of providing an image for the reader. The parenthetical passages set the reader up for what was going to come. It explained what wasn't there in the straight passages. This style of writing helps in stories like this because not too many people have a lot of knowledge on this subject.
In Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter", I see the straight narrative as the present, while the parenthetical sections are the past. Overall she is trying to give a picture of the war as whole, how it is affecting the people of Spain and the cruel times they are trying to overcome. She uses the narrative of the family to give the reader a personal interest in the people as a whole. The reader becomes attached to the family in the narrative. The parenthetical passages are almost thoughts in her head, flashbacks of moments she "remembers" while she is with the family. After hearing the context of the family and the reader forms an emotional attachment, she talks of the situations in a broader sense. For example, she makes you sympathize for the small sick baby in the Hernandez home, then flashes back to her time visiting a hospital full of wounded children, many of whom are unlikely to recover. She uses the story of Hernandez family, which encompasses many different pieces of the war, to explain the bigger picture and to make the reader feel for it's victims.
I believe the parenthetical passages give us more definition as to why the characters behave and act the way they do. I also think its a symbiotic relationship between the two. One would not be as impacting without the other. Its like the parenthetical passages are the large scale view and the straight passages the small scale view. You understand how people act as a whole and then how it affects individuals and their family.
Gellhorn reports on a war story in "The Third Winter" by using straight text and parenthetical text. To me, it seems as if the straight text is an account of what she sees with her own eyes. Through it, she tells a story complete with a setting a plot. Characters are well depicted through dialogue and description. The parenthetical text serve as extra details about the story. They offer further clarification and factual information about details that are noted in the straight text. For example, on page 426 there is a description of the hospital that Gellhorn previously mentions. It is much more thorough and goes further in depth about the situation at hand. The parenthetical text allows two stories to be told at the same time. It appeals to emotions on a different level than the straight text in the sense it doesn't simply offer what Gellhorn sees, but what she has to say about it. The two are very helpful in conveying truth while playnig on the emotions.
I believe that Gellhorn uses the straight passages to show dialogue, what the characters are thinking and doing, and what is actually occurring in the moment. Gellhorn uses parenthetical passages to separate from the characters to the author. She uses them to show places the characters are and what is going on behind the scenes. It is almost like a narrated movie -- in this story, you can read and understand the characters through dialogue and descriptions, but you need a narrator to tell you from scene to scene what is going ona nd where they physically are. She tries to separate the necessary details of one needs to know in order to understand the story, with what is going on in that moment.
This story reminded me of this movie "Four Rooms" where there were four interlocking stories that made up one whole larger story. Gellhorn does something similar. She uses her characters to tell certain parts of the story while also using paragraphs that seem contradictory to her characters ideas. (i.e. They say "I don't like the war." and she follows that with details about the war.) In this way you fully experience more of what the writer was trying to show.
21 comments:
During Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter" she decides to not simply tell the story through one scene with the same characters. Instead, she tells her story with main characters (Hernandez's family)and after every few paragraphs she includes parenthetical passages with other minor characters. She does this in order to give more depth to the story and give the reader a better understanding of what she is experiencing. Each parenthetical paragraph section goes into detail of the information presented in the previous paragraph. For example, on page 425 Hernandez briefly states how the war is so horrible and he doesn't even care about it anymore. The following paragraph goes into detail about the war and the roles that certain people play during it. Another example is on 426 when Lola was explaining how her child isn't healthy because she doesn't have the proper food to eat. Following this statement, Gellhorn goes into detail about children in the hospital and how they aren't getting proper nutrition either. The main focus for Gellhorn to use these parenthetical paragraphs is to give some more meat to the story, giving the reader a deeper inside to the way the war was really like those days.
I believe when Gelhorn was writing this story, the entire time she kept in mind how exactly she was going to get the reader to not only see but feel exactly what she experiences in a way that is still empathetic. Gelhorn wants the reader to if not see, truly understand what and how horrible this war was. The way she does this is by using the parenthetical passages and the characters. Although the story has minor characters, it really is all about the Hernandez family whom are the main characters and majority of who the story is about. The opening of the story is a great example, “In Barcelona, it was perfect bombing weather.” Statements like this and other sentences throughout really makes the reader stand back and just say “whoa!” well, at least that’s what it did for me. Gelhorn was able to capture the mercilessness of exactly how this war was and at the same time write in a way that is still compassionate and understanding. I believe this is how and why she uses parenthetical and straight passages. And they function in this way to portray both feelings to the reader.
Gellhorn alternates between straight passages(in the moment, dialogue-ridden moments) with parenthetical passages(reflections and almost thinking in her head) to create a uniquely personal yet detached article. She uses the individual characters of the Hernandez's to create personalities the reader can relate to and see the war through their eyes and experiences. Pairing this with Gellhorn's own first-hand experiences at the hospital, food line and opera provides more general information that allows the reader to grasp a deeper understanding of the underlying issues and enhances the scenes with the Hernandez's. It's almost as if Gellhorn manages to tell two stories in one. Both are technically about the same thing, the war, but yet are vastly different in their primary focus and style. They build off each other to create one story that has deeper components and shows the war in all its different sides. It combines the social, economic, political and humane elements of the war and how they are interrelated.
The structure of this story is sort of like that of the bob marley poster that I'm sure most everyone has seen. His face is made up of a collage of thousands of really small images. In a similar way, the whole of the story (the war) is made up of a hundreds of thousands of stories. Every aspect Gellhorn mentioned, the Hernandez family, the children in the hospital, the hospital building, the opera and the theater and those who attend, all contribute to form an image of the war that Gellhorn wanted to portray; one of "sacrifice and pathos," according to the introduction to the story.
Gellhorn's use of traveling through time, always returning to the present, gives the story a narration. Without this push and pull, it would merely be a story of scenes. But instead,
we travel with Gellhorn and experience the things she has through her words.
The structure this story is written in, gave me the idea of a movie. The way all the paragraphs go fluently over to the next one, makes it easy readable and imaginable.
The straight passages, the paragraphs that tells about the Hernández family give a ‘one moment situation’. That is the place where the ‘movie’ starts. Gellhorn walks over to the families house and then the ‘story’ begins. These scenes give you an idea about what the war does to this family and probably many more families with them. How is the situation and how do people think, react and talk about things?
The parenthetical passages gives us an idea about the situation in bigger ‘communities’ as the hospital, opera, theaters and factories. It gives you a bigger view on how the war influences people’s live. Why do they do what they do? Why do they go to the opera? Because it makes them forget the situation that they are in.
The way these two passages are used with each other reminds me of a movie. The scene of the family naturally rolls into a scene of an experience of Gellhorn. And because it is describes very clear, I could see the movie in my head.
For example on page 426. In the beginning of the paragraph they talk about the sons of the family. They are in the army and one of them just visited home. In the end of the paragraph they look at the baby in Lola’s arms.
The paragraph that follows is about the children in the hospital. She describes all the details and tells why these kids are in the hospital. I could really imagine what the hospital would have looked like and how Gellhorn would have felt when she was there.
I think she does that really good in every paragraph. I think this story made the war, or any war, come really close. You really get an idea about what this war meant to people and I guess that was the goal of Gellhorn with this story.
Martha Gellhorn used straight and parenthetical passages throughout "The Third Winter" to separate the small personal story of the Hernandez family from the broad overview of life during a brutal war. In the straight passages, the brief stories about the Hernandez family's struggles efficiently illustrate the problems that most Spaniards were dealing with during the war. She used this family to provide a specific example of the focus of her literary piece, which is the vast problems throughout Spain that are described in detail in the parenthetical passages.
The two passages complement each other well. The parenthetical passages explain the current situation in Spain, which allows the reader to clearly understand what is going on there. If she did not include this information, it would be much more difficult for the reader to comprehend the situation. The straight passages on the Hernandez family adds color and more voices to the story as a whole. These passages show how a family was directly affected by the war.
Gellhorn uses parenthetical side stories to describe the overall plight of what Hernandez and his family are going through at the time of the war. Though things can be alluded to in the main story (the lack of food, the child not being allowed to go to school, and the daughter coming home from working in the factory) they are better emphasized when Gellhorn tells her first-person account of actually experiencing what is alluded to (the people in line at the market, the children sick or wounded in the hospital, the people at work in the factory when the electricity is cut).
Without these parenthetical side-stories, Gellhorn's overall story would be weakened. Though her interactions with the Hernandez family draw sympathy from the reader, it is not fully expressed until the reader experiences what the Hernandez family goes through and fears on a daily basis. To echo what kimmy said, it is exactly like that ridiculous Bob Marley poster we've all seen--small pictures (like the picture of the Hernandez family) that make up the overall picture (the plight that all of the nameless people are going through at the time of the war).
In Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter" Gellhorn uses parenthetical passages interlaced with straight dialog passages allowing her to not only show the facts about the war but further explain them in detail. With this method Gellhorn can take her experiences with the Hernandez's family and relate them to other aspects of the war, broadening the topic further then to just one specific family. This literary device is quite effective in that Gellhorn can talk about the war as a whole in her parenthetical passages, as well as further prove her parenthetical passages with the use of the dialog from the Hernandez family.
At first I didn't even notice there was a difference between the bits of dialog and the paragraphs in the parenthesis. It all read smoothly, like a screen play of a movie would from scene to scene. This is a very effective method of incorporating dialog and details all into one piece.
I think that the narrative of the Hernandez family, currently happening is shaped by the larger context of the problem, past experiences in Spain, which is left in the parentheses. Gellhorn relates this family's story to Spain's status as a country: fractured, unsanitary, barren and desperate. But she also relates the strength of the family to many others. It seems that the young daughter-in-law is being compared to the nurse and that Gellhorn imagines the sons at war to be similiar to the soldiers she met earlier. It is definitely an effective way to tell this kind of story. She uses both the intimacy of the family and the scary images she encounters in other situations to tell a well-rounded and detailed story about the state of Spain.
I really enjoyed the way that Gellhorn set up this story. It was interesting to read about personalized stories contrasted with an overview of what was going on in the country as a whole in her parenthetical paragraphs. Like a few other people I was also reminded of a movie while reading the piece. I've always liked when a writer, in a piece like this or in a film, goes from one scene into another and then back to the original scene, which Gellhorn does a couple of times during this story.
One of my favorite parts of the story was when Gellhorn writes about people going to the movies for fun and to take their minds off of things only to have the power go out because of bombings. The best part of it, for me, was how she notes that the people, being so used to the bombing, were more excited and thrilled by the film than the prospect of death that they face on a constant basis.
Big and small. Throughout "The Third Winter," Gellhorn's sympathy, empathy and respect for the people of Barcelona is clearly illustrated. Because of her deep admiration for them and in turn for the Hernandez's, the focus of the story is always supposed to be on the effects and consequences of war to the families,people, and life of Barcelona. The parenthetical vignettes are like the war itself, fragmented scenes of tense calm and quiet horror. They are meant to let the reader feel and see how living in this area, at this time, as one of these people might feel. In the end, they are with parenthesis which delineate side notes and something other then what the main story is about. Although these scenes are vital to the story, I believe Gellhorn also wants to illustrate the strength of the Hernandez's as a critical point of the story, marking their strength both human and heroic. The parenthetical scenes in the end serve to highlight the bigger picture of the people effected by war, who all to often become numbered casualties in the fragmented and insane backdrop of war.
The straight passages connect to form a complete narrative. The parenthetical passages interrupt that narrative to bring us to a separate setting. They offer insight into the paragraphs before it, almost like narrative footnotes. I think this is an effective way of illustrating the war and making it more real. By using the parenthetical passages to expand on an image, Gelhorn revels how connected these people, the children and strangers, really are. She shows us how the war affects those not just on an individual level, but on a societal level as well. They also allow us to “see” more of the story and get background information as we read along, instead of dividing the piece into several distinct sections.
In Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter," she offsets the straight passages with parenthetical passages. She uses the straight passages to investigate the Hernandez family and show a close up of what one normal family went through on a daily basis. They had Spanish pride, they had faith that their country would win the war. They all endured many hardships for the war but it was okay because it was for good of the country. Gellhorn uses the parenthetical passages to show the bigger picture of the war. She uses the images to show dying children which creates a sympathy for the families and the characters but also uses the images from the munition factory to portray the feeling of calmness and composure. Everyone expects the bombs and everything is so routine that nobody really notices anymore. The two types of scenes work very well together in order to make a complete picture of the war for Gellhorn's readers.
In “The Third Winter” Martha Gellhorn uses the parenthetical passages to paint a larger picture of the effects of the war. Her straight passages are more about her personal experiences with the Hernandez family. The fact that the parenthetical passages dealt with the same topic of conversation she had with Hernandez family made their conversations much more meaningful. What she talks about with the family stays with you as Gellhorn takes you into other scenes. As I read the passage about the hospital I was constantly thinking about Lola’s baby not getting the care that she needed. The fact that she doesn’t jump around from one topic to another makes the story read so smoothly.
The way she alternates between straight passages and parenthetical passages made me picture a camera zooming in and out of a scene. In her conversations with the Hernandez family we were told so much about how this one family was suffering, but when she zooms out we get to see how Spain as a whole was suffering. Both the parenthetical and the straight passages are necessary in order to really understand the state of the country during the war. By zooming in and out Gellhorn gives you the complete story two very different ways.
When I was reading this story, it almost felt like I was reading a screenplay. The difference between the straight and parenthetical passages were the difference between what you can see, or read and the background information and scenery that is present in a movie that doesn't always make its way into text clearly. I think that Gellhorn did a great job of providing an image for the reader. The parenthetical passages set the reader up for what was going to come. It explained what wasn't there in the straight passages. This style of writing helps in stories like this because not too many people have a lot of knowledge on this subject.
In Martha Gellhorn's "The Third Winter", I see the straight narrative as the present, while the parenthetical sections are the past. Overall she is trying to give a picture of the war as whole, how it is affecting the people of Spain and the cruel times they are trying to overcome. She uses the narrative of the family to give the reader a personal interest in the people as a whole. The reader becomes attached to the family in the narrative. The parenthetical passages are almost thoughts in her head, flashbacks of moments she "remembers" while she is with the family. After hearing the context of the family and the reader forms an emotional attachment, she talks of the situations in a broader sense. For example, she makes you sympathize for the small sick baby in the Hernandez home, then flashes back to her time visiting a hospital full of wounded children, many of whom are unlikely to recover. She uses the story of Hernandez family, which encompasses many different pieces of the war, to explain the bigger picture and to make the reader feel for it's victims.
I believe the parenthetical passages give us more definition as to why the characters behave and act the way they do. I also think its a symbiotic relationship between the two. One would not be as impacting without the other. Its like the parenthetical passages are the large scale view and the straight passages the small scale view. You understand how people act as a whole and then how it affects individuals and their family.
Gellhorn reports on a war story in "The Third Winter" by using straight text and parenthetical text. To me, it seems as if the straight text is an account of what she sees with her own eyes. Through it, she tells a story complete with a setting a plot. Characters are well depicted through dialogue and description. The parenthetical text serve as extra details about the story. They offer further clarification and factual information about details that are noted in the straight text. For example, on page 426 there is a description of the hospital that Gellhorn previously mentions. It is much more thorough and goes further in depth about the situation at hand.
The parenthetical text allows two stories to be told at the same time. It appeals to emotions on a different level than the straight text in the sense it doesn't simply offer what Gellhorn sees, but what she has to say about it. The two are very helpful in conveying truth while playnig on the emotions.
I believe that Gellhorn uses the straight passages to show dialogue, what the characters are thinking and doing, and what is actually occurring in the moment. Gellhorn uses parenthetical passages to separate from the characters to the author. She uses them to show places the characters are and what is going on behind the scenes. It is almost like a narrated movie -- in this story, you can read and understand the characters through dialogue and descriptions, but you need a narrator to tell you from scene to scene what is going ona nd where they physically are. She tries to separate the necessary details of one needs to know in order to understand the story, with what is going on in that moment.
This story reminded me of this movie "Four Rooms" where there were four interlocking stories that made up one whole larger story. Gellhorn does something similar. She uses her characters to tell certain parts of the story while also using paragraphs that seem contradictory to her characters ideas. (i.e. They say "I don't like the war." and she follows that with details about the war.) In this way you fully experience more of what the writer was trying to show.
Post a Comment