1.
Direct Characterization:
·
“In the ramifications of Party doctrine [Julia]
had not the faintest interest.”
·
“[Winston] moved over to the window: a smallish,
frail figure, the meagerness of his body merely emphasized by the blue overalls
which were the uniform of the Party. His hair was very fair, his face naturally
sanguine, his skin roughened by coarse soap and blunt razor blades and the cold
of the winter that had just ended.”
Indirect Characterization:
· Eh, well this is awkward. Most of the book is blatant, direct characterization (as it goes along with the tone of the book). I feel like I can't find a good example without rereading the whole book. So...yes.
2. I'd have to say no. Orwell's style, his syntax, his diction--I can't say I noted a change as he spoke of different characters...He described them all in a straightforward, almost joyless manner (again, the tone!), and describes many of the same aspects/characteristics at first mention.
3. Winston Smith is a
dynamic character. He began the book as a tentative rebel against the Party,
met Julia and become a more outright rebel, then ended up “reintegrated” back
into society so that he loved the Party, Ingsoc, and Big Brother, and was apathetic
towards Julia.
4. In the case of Winston Smith, I feel that I have met a person. (Not so much Julia, though.) I got to know him well throughout the book, and he seems rather easy to relate to (I'm guessing most of us feel like a rebel against the norm at least one time or another in our lifetimes).
Well this is interesting. Matthew pointed out that part of this appears in...Greek or something. This is very, very, very odd, and I'm not quite sure what to do about that. Haha, odd, but I apologize for anyone who was disappointed by not being able to read a few sentences, because I know there is a LOT of people feeling that way right now.
ReplyDelete