zaaaAP Lit SuperBlog

Powerful Similes

The first thing that struck me about God of Small Things was Arundhati Roy's powerful use of similes.  The first instance that I noticed it was in chapter one when Rahel was talking with Baby Kochama.  When Rahel goes to open a window, Baby comments, "'Shut it when yo've finished with it,' Baby Kochamma said, and closed her face like a cupboard" (Roy, 30).  Comparing Baby Kochamma's face to a cupboard emphasizes her cold and withdrawn personality.  The second instance I found was also in chapter one.  Speaking of the arrival of the Christian faith, the narrator says, "before Christianity arrived in a boat and seeped into Kerala like tea from a teabag"  (Roy, 33).  This simile shows how the Christian faith was slowly becoming more prominent in Indian society.  The third instance of a simile was in chapter two.  It is used to describe Rahel's teeth.  The narrator says, "Rahel's new teeth were waiting inside her gums like words in a pen" (Roy, 37).  This comparison is a powerful and interesting way to describe Rahel's young age. 

Clever Colors

As I was reading The God of Small Things, I was thinking about Roy's extraordinary use of different colors. We were talking about this in class the other day as well, but Roy doesn't just use the normal colors we think of—red, blue, yellow, green—or even the normal variations of those colors—magenta, navy blue, gold, lime-green, etc.—but she also uses these funky variations using different description words (and often repeats them). "Immodest green," "mossgreen," "an uneven gray," "graygreen," "broken yellow," "earth-brown," "crumbleblack." These are but a few examples of her interesting choice of descriptive colors. Color is clearly an important part of description for Arundhati Roy. There is hardly a point in the book where she introduces a new character, object, or setting without going into detail about its colors. I think that Roy's use of these kinds of words brings out the deeper essence of what she is describing much better than if she were to use what we would consider the normal colors. Using her own colors, she creates a more real image that has meaning.

Our Lives are Acted Out

After recently taking the practice AP multiple choice section, I was able to fully immerse myself in The God Of Small Things for the first time since we started reading it. I feel as though we are rushing through this book, almost as if to get another one in before we start preparing for the AP Exam. I feel in order for us as students to fully comprehend Roy's true meaning behind this book it is necessary to spend the same amount of time on this book as we have the last couple of books What do you think?

That being said it was very interesting looking into the passage that we had to answer questions about for the practicce multiple choice section of the AP exam. The thing that I was most interested in was the way Roy made it seem like the characters in the book were all acting out a play when Sophie Mol was there. I thought it was really cool how Roy talked about Rahel going backstage, with Ammu following her, to go talk to Velutha. In many regards I think this is true in real life. Most people put up a front, or a fake personlaity to avoid any disharmony of conflict. In  sense, we are not being who we are truly meant to be, we are just actors in this gigantic play, who are too afraid of straying from their scripted lines and possibly even walking off stage every once in a while. What is your analysis of Roy's allusion to play's in the book? 

Comrade Pillai and the Modern Personal Attack Ad

One of my favorite passages so far in God of Small of Things deals with the Communist leader Comrade K. N. M. Pillai and his stringent opposition to the Pickle Factory. Though he openly opposed the factory he  "never came out openly against Chacko." (115) Further, the author said that he "was careful to strip hum of any human attributes and pr sent him as an abstract functionary"

From the moment I read this passage I felt an instant connection to US politics. I think of the saddest parts of American politics is that we lose connection to the idea that our enemies within politics are ideas and not people. On both sides of politics, this occurrs frequently.  On the Republican side, we see ads equating military service to cowardice (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) and equating life long preachers and educators to the anti-Christ and a “domestic terrorist.” On the democratic side as well we attack without mercy. For example, one (desperate) group openly attacked John McCain's age, ridiculing him as if he was not fit to serve.  Even Barack Obama, the person I worked for nearly 2 years broke his promise to stray away perosnal attack ads, only two weeks into the general election campaign. This type of campaigning has convinced thoroughly that politics and personal relationship cannot coexist. I wonder if you think we can actually change this system.

Striking Line Poem

I really like this assignment. My striking line is "There are certain things you can't do. Like write a letter to a part of yourself like your feet or hair or heart." (156). I was thinking of making a poem about someone who wasn't there when Ineeded them. I would start off the poem as if someone was saying that to me and then I'd respond by saying something like "well there are certain things you could never do either..." and then go into how they were never there. Does this sound like a good idea?

What is Love?

Ammu as a character contradicts herself in the department of loving her children.. She says that she loves her children enough for a mother and a father but she also tells those same children that she loves them less when they are cruel or mean to people. How can Ammu have both of these feelings. They don't seem to work together. Rahel is worried now that her mother loves her less then Estha or Sophie mol but Rahel says that she loves her children most in the world. Also they reckless way she acts sometimes hinders her children. Maybe she has to act recklessly because she has to much to live up to.

Finally, A New Topic

Though The God of Small Things may not be my favorite book we have read this year, I really appreciate that it steps into a new culture that is not discussed often in English classes (or at least mine). Though the cultures that are usually part of the books we read are unquestionably important, I sometimes find it frustrating that we never learn about other places in the world besides Western Europe and America. In my four years of English, I cannot remember reading book about Hispanic, Asian, or Pacific Island cultures. I think there was one other book we read on Middle Eastern culture. I think there should be a more diverse range in literature because Americans no relatively little about other people's cultures. The media fails to provide this information, so perhaps the school should step in. Does anyone else agree? Has anyone else had a different experience and read literature from diverse cultural backgrounds?

Wait Until Dark

I absolutely loved this play.  I was looking forward to getting out of school, and I am defiantly a theater dork, but after having to go through a long tech week, working two weekends for the musical, getting only a week to get the whole set down for band concerts,  the beginning of the Emit Till tech week, and being incredibly sleep deprived, I was a little worried about being able to even make it through the whole thing.  But after that first scene I got completely sucked into the story.  Everything worked together so well.  I loved the way the phones were used in the play, especially when Susy started to catch on and tricked the men into dialing the phone booth number.  The use of lighting (or lack of lighting) was wonderful, whether it was the scene done completely in the dark, or the small shine of a light under the door right before Roat entered and killed Mike.  I also couldn't help notcie the difference between the set for Wait Until dark and the set for Caroline or Change.  The stage doesn't seem that big, but the hallways went back very far into the back of the house, so I had to wounder just how big their theater space really is.  Right from the begginning I was into the story, and it is great so see how all these elements went into creating such a wonderful play.

An Exciting Play, Finally

I found Wednesdays' performance of Wait Until Dark both blood-tingling and thought inducing. The play, on its most basic level was thrilling. Each scene added something significant to the progression of the story, the characters were developed and acted superbly, and the stageplay (screenplay of a theater performance?) took full advantage of the intricately designed stage and props. There was a linear build-up of suspense throughout the story which culimated in an impressive climax. One of the things that I thought was very interesting was the use of the telephone in the blind woman's house and the phonebooth (which we couldn't see.) With the advent of the cellular age a plot like this simply isn't realistic and I think the play gave an interesting account of how clever the playwright had to be in order to right something like this. I also enjoyed the use of the blackouts. The blind woman, who you would think would be easy pickings for a murderer, used her own disability to her advantage which I thought was very interesting. The psychological aspect of the play was intriguing as well. Why didn't the woman just hand over the doll? That is one of the questions that the play introduces and leaves for the audiences. I still haven't decided on an answer myself but I think it has something to do with her own self respect and/or pride.

Wait Until Dark helped me prove to myself that it's not theatre that I don't enjoy but the plays that I see that I don't like. In this case I enjoyed it immensely.

Tying Up the Loose Ends

So far I'm really enjoying "The God of Small Things."  At first I was a little disappointed that we weren't reading "Pride and Prejudice" but now I'm so glad that we didn't.  This book is different from anything I've ever read before and I find the style captivating.

I'm just wondering how it connects to the other books we've read over the year.  I'm assuming we're not just reading these specific books for the heck of it.  I mean I'm sure there's not a specific connection between all of them, but there's probably some similarities between this novel and "Light in August" for example.

In the end I guess my main question is "Why this book?"  I'm happy we're reading it, and the style is cool, and it's different, but what else?  There are plenty of other books that we could be reading, so why this one?

Color?

So I have not really been at class all week, so I don't really know if we have discussed this yet, but I have been wondering what all these different colors mean.  Skyblue must have been mentioned a thousand times in the book and there really doesn't seem to be any pattern to it.  Sometimes, it's skyblue when there are communists everywhere, and sometimes it's a skyblue Plymouth bought from somebody. (47 for the latter) Is there any significance at all or is it just a light blue and an easy way to describe everything?
Blue isn't my only problem. Green is a pain in the donkey. It seems like there is no way green could be a motif (even though I'm sure it is) because there are so many different types of green in this book.  Slushgreen, mossgreen, swampgreen, plain green, it's almost like the author wrote the word green, opened the dictionary, pointed, and put that word in front of green. It's random, they do not seem to ever relate, and I need a lot of help with this color.
The worst colors are the ones that appear randomly. Powder-pink, golden, yellow, purple, red, orange, you name it, the color is probably in the book.  Is this just Roy's style, or does every color in the book have a meaning?
Then there's black and white and anything in the middle. Is black, white, grey different because of the lack of color, and if so, is that even relevant or close to a motif? Can someone shed some light on one or any of these colors?

Color

So I have not really been at class all week, so I don't really know if we have discussed this yet, but I have been wondering what all these different colors mean.  Skyblue must have been mentioned a thousand times in the book and there really doesn't seem to be any pattern to it.  Sometimes, it's skyblue when there are communists everywhere, and sometimes it's a skyblue Plymouth bought from somebody. (47 for the latter) Is there any significance at all or is it just a light blue and an easy way to describe everything?
Blue isn't my only problem. Green is a pain in the donkey. It seems like there is no way green could be a motif (even though I'm sure it is) because there are so many different types of green in this book.  Slushgreen, mossgreen, swampgreen, plain green, it's almost like the author wrote the word green, opened the dictionary, pointed, and put that word in front of green. It's random, they do not seem to ever relate, and I need a lot of help with this color.
The worst colors are the ones that appear randomly. Powder-pink, golden, yellow, purple, red, orange, you name it, the color is probably in the book.  Is this just Roy's style, or does every color in the book have a meaning?
Then there's black and white and anything in the middle. Is black, white, grey different because of the lack of color, and if so, is that even relevant or close to a motif? Can someone shed some light on one or any of these colors?

Tipsy Turny

I have noticed that a lot of people were blogging on the fact that GOST is a hard novel to follow due to the constant changes in point of view.  While this maybe the case, I believe the author does this for a reason.  Just like most of the characters find themselves not truly connected to one another, for instance even Estha and Rahel find that their once close bond between each other is broken when Rahel leaves, I believe we find ourselves not connecting personally with the characters either.  With Arundhati Roy changing the point of view constantly, she creates this detachment between the characters themselves and us as the reader.  I actually find this way of writing enjoyable and keeping me on edge, though I will admit it is difficult at times.  So I guess my question is does anyone else agree that Roy writes the novel from different point of views in order to convey the detachment between the characters and us? Or does anyone find this way of writing interesting?

Two Thoughts (or Three)

In chapter ten of The God of Small Things, Estha tells us of his two thoughts: 1) That "anything can happen to anyone" and 2) "It's best to be prepared" (pg. 186)  Later on in the chapter he adds his third thought 3)" a boat".  He repeats them again a few pages later, and I was just wondering if anyone knew what these thoughts meant.  Are they irrelevant or do they mean something?  Any thoughts?

Still on Light in August.

So I know that we finished Light in August last week, but I forgot to say some things that were bothering me about the book.  I think that in alot of literature, subjects like sex, rape, abuse, exc are discussed in a manner that trivializes them.  In Light in August, much of the same themes were brought up.  In our class discussions, we all seemed to put off Christmas and his brutal raping and beating of women as "a product of his identity crisis."  I mean really? If someone went to court for raping and beating someone, could they say that they did it because they couldn't decide if they were white or black? I know that this of only a book, but the same goes for the media.  We are exposed to really brutal stuff daily, and pretend that it doesn't affect our lives.  Have you seen the stats on rape? Some say that 1 in 3 women will be raped in their lifetime.  That personally disgusts me.  If we trivialize sex, violence, exc in things like "classic literature," no wonder the media does it.  I'm not saying that some kid is going to read LIA and say, "I want to me just like Joe Christmas!" and go rape someone, but I think we can't just take something like rape and be like, "oh, well that is there to support this motif." 

I also get that this was written in a completely different time period than now, but I am simply asking for us AP College English students to think a little more about what you read before you brush it off as support of your motif.   

Question about "Wait Until Dark" Plot

Okay so I enjoyed the play we saw on Wednesday and thought it was really interesting and exciting. Especially during certain scenes. My question is did Mr. Hendrix know what was in the doll, and if he did, why didn't the cops arrest him and Ms. Hendrix at the end for possession of heroin? It seems to me that the cops should've put them in custody even if the doll didn't belong to them because they still were keeping it hidden at their house.

Fine Arts at its Best

I am choosing to write about the play we saw yesterday just because I feel like I have a great appreciation for what the actors do.  Since I myself plan on going into theater as a major and enjoy acting, I always jump on the opportunity to go see a play. So while some of you might say, " Oh, this sucks! or I hate plays!" I am really excited. I thought that the play yesterday was very well performed.  You could clearly tell that the actors had really taken time to understand everything about their character and become them when on stage. Especially the blind woman, she was really convincing and realistic about how she moved and conveyed to the audience she was blind.  From the very start of the show the actors pulled the audience in and really grabbed their attention.  I think that if you grab the audiences attention at the very beginning, it's really hard for them to loose their focus.  Throughout the entire production I felt like I was on the edge of my seat in suspense. I wanted to know what was going to happen next, and really cared what happened to these characters.  In addition, I enjoyed the special effects and the scene in the dark. That was a cool extra addition to focus in the audience again just in case they lost interest.  What did you think of the play? Did you think the actors were convincing? 

I Can't Stay After School Thursday, I Have to Go to India.

As a general rule, books are better when you have some kind of personal investment in the subject matter. For this reason, alongside many other reasons, God of Small Things may be one of the best books I've ever read. Exactly one week from this moment, I will be on an incredibly long flight to India. We leave from school, and return on a Sunday night, only to go to school the next day. I can't even begin to imagine what I will see, eat, come down with, or learn. But I do know that one of the most exciting things about Indian culture is the story telling. Roy's language and general style is beautiful. Most books I've read by noteworthy Indian authors, like Rohinton Minstry or Salman Rushdie have a similar way of writing that I've yet to see in other cultures. I can't put my finger on what the exact difference is, or why its different at all, but I think that the religion aspect might contribute something. I know that Hinduism involves a lot of stories, as we see when Rahel describes the performers. Aside from that, though, the general richness and diversity of India makes for a large range of influence, which I am both excited for and terrified of. The contrast between the halls of OPRF and India at large might give my theory greater backing, so when I come back I'll be sure to follow up. But to make it broader, does anyone else note the difference between Western authors and Eastern authors?

Extravagances= Today’s Thriller

From what I could gather, most students who went on the field trip enjoyed the play. I often overheard students saying that it was better than the play during the fall. I liked both, but I liked this one a little bit more because it was a thriller. This 1966 thriller, written by Frederick Knott, prompted me to think about thrillers today.  I have concluded that I enjoyed this play because it built suspense without having guns, freakish killings, or other extravagant distractions that many thrillers today rely on. I wonder when and why the thriller transitioned into what it is today.  I am generalizing today’s thrillers, but their poor equation for suspense is often rewarded at best with two star reviews. Someday the thriller equation will return to the ways of Hitchcock and Knott.

Mixed Feelings

Even though I am enjoying GOST somtimes I just getting really confused by the novel. I'll be getting into a section of a story then it just jumps into a whole different time period. I had high expectations for this novel and I am not enjoying it as much as I thought I would be. The novel itself is not too terrible its just that when I'm reading and they totally skip to another character it throws me off. I am getting used to it though and I hope that the end of the novel is more consistent the the begigning. Also watching The Sound Of Music made me enjoy the book also. I never really put the connections of the characters together until after we watched the clip of the movie. The Sound Of Music was one of my favorite movies when I was younger so I enjoyed watching it in class. My question is does GOST things make sense one second then totally throw you off by changing characters?

The Script of Life

 I have not been enjoying The God of Small Things as much as I thought I would. The way the novel jumps around in time has left me in endless confusion. Despite this, my interest has been held by Roy's use of poetic devices. Every other page or so Roy hooks my interest again with a striking simile, metaphor or other literary device. 

There is one metaphor in particular that I was amazed by. On page 166 I really enjoyed Roy's interpretation of the family greeting Sophie Mol. I liked her comparison of it to a play mostly because I find it completely relatable. Whenever I am meeting distant relatives or most other people for that matter I feel almost like I am performing or putting on an act. I am always much politer and more courteous than I am usually. 

Whenever I am in a situation like this I feel like the other person is performing as well. After the polite introductions there are always the predictable age appropriate questions asked to me. Lately it has been "where are you going to go to college" or "what will you major in?". These questions seem to have been placed in some kind of univeral script for introductions and small talk making these encounters even more play like. Has anyone else had any interactions like this? Or come across anything else in the novel that you find personally relatable?

Avoiding the Inevitable

Since I am currently frustrated with The God of Small Things, though I know that I will have to eventually blog about it, I am going to talk about the play we went to on Wednesday at U of Chicago.

I am not a theatre-goer, so I am not familiar with what is good, bad, or mediocre, but I thought that it was quite impressive. The set was so intricate I have to wonder how much time and energy went into it. It also was there for a purpose. I don't think one setpiece was not used throughout the play. Everything had a purpose and the players really interacted with it beautifully. My only complaint was that I thought only 10% of the audience could see into the bedroom and bathroom. Luckily, I was one of that 10%, but I felt bad for the rest of the audience who couldn't see any of the action.

I was also impressed with the use of sound effects and lighting. I had never experienced a play in the dark before! Also, I enjoyed the dramatic music during the rising action in the second part of the play. I felt like it was a thriller movie, though I am not sure if that is what the cast was looking for in a reaction.

The acting and stage movements (I don't know the technical terms) was very natural to me. They moved effortlessly around the set and did not just stand around like everyone in my Spanish class when we do skits. Then again, they are professionals.

What did everyone think about the play? Also, if you know the theatre terms that I am lacking in this post, please tell me.

Misunderstanding

I had very high hopes for The God of Small Things. One being because it wasn’t Pride and Prejudice, and I was honestly relived not to be reading it, but the other being that Mr. Heidkamp made it sound so fantastic. I have really enjoyed, for the most part, all the books we have read this year and I was excited to read Mr. Heidkamp’s choice of book.

However, my expectations were not met.  I found it hard to get into the story, maybe because that first chapter threw me off, and after that is was difficult to grasp the time of the novel. But as I continued to read I found that the constant changing of time and subtle changes in point of view were also making it hard for me to follow the events of the novel.  Despite thinking that the pros that Roy uses are incredible written and beautiful to read, I still was uninterested and disconnected from the novel

I’m not completely sure why this novel is a any different from the others for me,  but I am a tad disappointed that now being over half done with novel, I still feel like I  never got a chance to really know or connect with the characters like I have with our other novels. Has anyone else had any trouble connecting with The God of Small Thing, and do you know why? Or is this anyone’s favorite novel so far?

Ammu Von Trapp?

After reading chapters 6 through 10 and watching a little clip of The Sound of Music, I've noticed that Ammu is similar to Baron Von Trapp.  Ammu's high expectations of Estha and Rahel could stem from the way she was treated as a child.  Ammu's father was a "monstrous, suspicious bully, with a streak of vicious cunning", and he also beat Mammachi and Ammu (172).  Because of this treatment Ammu "developed a lofty sense of injustice and the mulish, reckless streak that develops in Someone Small who has been bullied all their lives by Someone Big" (172-3).  Ammu could be strict with Estha and Rahel because she does not want them to misbehave, however, she, unlike Pappachi, would not beat them for misbehaving.  Baron Von Trapp expects his children to have good manners and do as they are told, similar to Ammu and her children.  In the movie Maria encouragesthe Von Trapp children to have fun, and Velutha could be considered to have a similar role in the book.

The Sound of Music seems to have a larger role in this book than I expected.  The fact that Ammu and the rest of her family are anglophiles shows, and the relationship of the characters in the book relate to the characters in the movie is also clear.  Are there any other connections between the book and the movie, or between the book and the West?

I Didn't Scream

I enjoyed the play Wait Until Dark, the main actress portrayed a blind woman very well, and the overall plot is on it's own interesting. 

However, although we were told it would be a scary  play, I wasn't prepared for the black out moments.  I'm not afraid to admit that I'm petrified, horrified, and completely mortified of the dark. 

Something about darkness makes me feel claustrophobic, and makes me remember every scary thing I've ever seen or experienced all at once.  So, while I wasn't actually scared of the play, I was afraid of the darkness.

But I didn't scream when everyone else did when the lady was being grabbed, so I do have some bragging rights to make up for my squeamishness during the dark moments.

No More Musicals

Out of the two plays that we have seen, Caroline or Change and Wait Until Dark, I definitely enjoyed Wait Until Dark much more. Although I thought that both stories were pretty interesting, the constant singing in Caroline or Change sometimes made it difficult for me to follow the story. The play today seemed to have the entire audience much more engaged. I know that it was a thriller, but i still felt the absence of music made it easier to focus. Does anyone else think that musicals tend to draw some attention away from the story? 

The Results of Molestation

As I read through the early chapters quickly, I almost missed the significance of the Orangedrink Lemondrink man molesting Estha. I figure that this event will significantly  influence Estha's character in a similar way that sexual harassment usually does in books and movies. He definitely lost his innocense and I am curious to see how this will effect his personality as the novel progresses. In addition, I also think it will effect Rahel. Because Estha and Rahel are so closely linked, I believe that the effect that the molestation had on Estha will transfer to Rahel. However, there's a chance that it could repel the two siblings. Do you think Rahel will lose her innosence as a result of Estha's molestation?

Just a Few of My Favorite Things

I must admit that the sing along to "My Favorite Things" was the highlight of my day.  Usually, I would not share this openly with anyone, but The Sound of Music is my absolute favorite musical of all time.  Singing along with Julie Andrews and the Von Trapps almost made me forget about the piles of homework that I have yet to finish.

I grew up watching and singing along with The Sound of Music.  Today reminded me of the countless times that I sat down with my family and truly just "lived in the moment".  Nothing could spoil our fun.

Unfortunately, it did for Estha.  The whole incident with the Orangedrink Lemondrink man kind of brought me back to reality.  True, not all things in life are as horrible as what Estha experienced.  But at the same time, all things are not as wonderful as in The Sound of Music.  I think that Roy made The Sound of Music seem so important to Estha and Rahel because it helped them get lost in the moment and forget about their problems.  Instead of worrying, they sang along...just singing about a few of their favorite things.

Outrage and Disgust

I am utterly appalled and horrifyingly disgusted by of the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man. He's a pedophile! I was very surprised with Estha's reaction because he did nothing for himself. He didn't yell for help or run away. Estha is old enough to understand that he was being violated. Just before this scene Ammu stated that she was proud that Estha accomplished and independent "man" task of going to the "His" room by himself. From that comment I figured Estha would at least try to play the role and get away from the freak. It felt very strange to me how this man's yellow teeth attracted Estha to him like mosquito's to a bright light. I was just so mad to read what happened to Estha. I wanted to get in that scene just so I could beat the crap out of that pervert. I was so scared for Estha afterwards as well because he was finally afraid of what just happened; it was a slow process for Estha. But he acted like any victim of sexual assault would in the end. I think he felt vulnerable, a little ashamed and filthy, especially when he described the hot sticky white egg white on his hands that wouldn't come off.And it was just creepy how this sick man spoke of how he knew the town where Estha live just so Estha would feel threatened to keep his mouth shut. And when he told Estha, "I'll see you in Ayemenem sometime (106)." I wanted to beat him up all over again! Another thing that got me worked ip was the he was called Uncle. I don't know who gave him that undeserving title but the idea of giving him the name of someone who is suppose to be someone you care for and cares for you was awful. I didn't get that part.

The syntax or phrasing of this paragraph may be confusing because it matches my tone. This scene really affected me as a reader, I apologize.

Meaning Behind the Italics

I would have done the same as the brother; the father would have done the same. She has no mother because fatherblood hates with love and pride, but motherblood with hate loves and cohabits (26).So far I have come to understand that italicized sentences and paragraphs are the inner thoughts of a character, but I keep hearing in class that it is more than that. This is where I got lost. I hears that the italicized is the inner inner thoughts of the character. I am having a lot of trouble grasping that concept. Can someone maybe clear this up for me? At first I thought, "oh this is simple. This just means that the person is only thinking not saying the following out loud." Apparently I was wrong. Is the italicized a deeper subconscious thought or is it an entirely different point of view or narration that is interrupting that moment of the story? I want to appreciate Faulkner's style and writing techniques but I want to understand them first.