Flaws Make a Story

| | Comments (2)

The biggest difference between simply writing an observation about a particular piece of literature and analyzing one of the major flaws or problems in the story, play, or poem is that you're using a certain interpretation of the work to back up a problem that you found in the writing. By including your own opinion or interpretation of the work into fixing or explaining the problem with the work, one can better understand the problems in a story. For example in Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) the MacDonald fixed the flaw or problem in both Othello and Romeo and Juliet. A paper could be made about why these were such flaws to the plays that Shakespeare wrote, and in a way MacDonald solved the problem and proved why such scenes were particularly annoying to the reader. The only thing MacDonald didn't do was explain whether these scenes or changes were necessary or effective in the plays.

Roberts doesn't particularly go over anything that I wasn't aware of before from other teachers. However, it's a new way of viewing events in literature that may have been overlooked otherwise. Plus, by making "objections depends on unusual rather than usual conditions" (Roberts 177), the person writing the paper concludes new or different ways of viewing a work of literature. It then snowballs into a bigger and better idea for a paper. Besides without those horrible or unusual reasons behind the character's actions, the story becomes boring or typical. This then becomes even worse than just getting mad at the main character that refuses to just explain what happened to the other character that's causing the conflict.

2 Comments

Melissa Schwenk said:

Just to make it easier and to have everything in same place, I'm placing Jessica Orlowski's comment she sent me from facebook on here:

I am just wondering- why did MacDonald need to solve the “problems” in Shakespeare’s plays in the first place? I know that this was to initiate a plot, but isn’t this just taking away the things that make Shakespeare interesting? Shakespeare IS unusual and atypical. MacDonald basically made him boring lol.

Melissa Schwenk said:

MacDonald didn’t necessarily make him boring. She fixed the huge flaws in the story. I mean did Romeo and Juliet really need to have the whole fight scene between Romeo and Tybalt that led to Tybalt’s death to perpetuate the plot in the play? I understand that it may have been need for the families to continue to hate each other, but at the same time it’s just irritating to have to read knowing that they’re fighting over something so trivial and stupid anyway.

I really like that you find Shakespeare to be atypical and unusual since a lot of things are now based off him and clichés have started because of him, but you’re right he was original. However, now he’s gotten kind of boring since people have redone a lot of the same ideas from what Shakespeare did. Basically, his plays would have been just as good though even with the fixed scenes. I mean MacDonald found a way to make them just as interesting without having horrible moments that made the reader annoyed that the characters had to fight. Sure it created different problems, but the reader didn’t feel angry at something that could have been so easily fixed.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

 

Recent Comments

Melissa Schwenk on Flaws Make a Story: MacDonald didn’t necessarily m
Melissa Schwenk on Flaws Make a Story: Just to make it easier and to