This academic article discusses the idea of free indirect discourse - granting the author the power of "omniscient powers of observation". The main character becomes transparent then and the author can enter the minds of other characters, as in "To Build A Fire" where Jack London tells the reader of the thought processes going on inside the mind of the man's doggy companion.
The main differences between this article and the one by Askin about Flannery O'Connor are:
1) The London article is considerably more.. high brow? I read a few pages and realized I had no idea what was going on and had to start over and try reading it again. I still don't really *get* it. The article on O'Connor is more accessible for the... lay-reader.
2) The London article is considerably longer than the O'Connor piece and focuses solely on one specific work: Jack London's "The Call of the Wild." The O'Connor piece touches upon several works by O'Connor and is much more generalized.
3) Although I initially thought that the London piece listed no sources at the end, I realize that the sources are foot-noted. Still, it seems that the O'Connor article has a lot more sources than the London piece.
4) The London article has a lot more psychology mumbojumbo (if you will) than the O'Connor piece. It is much more specific in itself psychological treatment of the text. The O'Connor piece touches more upon the psychology of the author and in a much more accessible manner.
NOTE: I just noticed something weird. On the page describing this assignment the article listed is "Jack London's Enduring Appeal" by Eric Miles Williamson. The article linked on EBSCOhost, however, is the monstrous "Psychoanalyzing the Narrative Logics of Naturalism: The Call of the Wild" by Donald E. Pease. Am I missing something here???
Oh, you noticed too! Good. Maybe we are all missing something.
I agree that the article was a bit harder to read than the O'Conner one. I mean, 27 pages of analyzing London!Posted by: Nessa at January 31, 2005 08:10 AM