Comments on seminar on short story named “Country” by Jayne Anne Phillips
Short story from "Points of View: Revised Edition" by James Moffett, Kenneth R. McElheny
Ms.Farago said...
"Country"
THE GIRLS – Jaspreet, Alex M. Bimpe, Tam Ngo
Began with a seminar outline:
-intro
-discussion
-body
-discussion
I don’t feel that the outline was very clear.
Began with Alex M.
- Alex gave a summary of the story. It was a bit confusing and she failed to use proper terminology when referring to the type of narrative. There were a number of times that the type of narration was discussed, but she never used the proper terminology (first-person limited). She did introduce us to some important elements in the story, such as the sexual nature of the story and the incestuous relationships that are exposed. Over though, I felt her summary could have been more fluid and concise.
Discussion with Jaspreet
- Jaspreet focus on the first paragraph only was a good idea. It allowed the audience to get a sense of the tone of this story. I liked the questions posed to the class about tone – although they could have been probed a little bit more, seeing as they had not read the story. I felt that Jaspreet did get her point across anyway.
- Jaspreet had good enthusiasm and began to use some of the proper terminology that was missed in the firs part of the presentation. She began to touch on the effects of the narrative decision (ie. No sympathy)
Diction with Tina
- Tina’s discussion on diction was very short and her part seemed disconnected from the other parts. The story was referred to as a “memoir” and “Country” is, in fact an observer narrative. There was also mention that this story is “also third person narrative” when referring to the fact that the story is told by the man about the girl. This story is first person, not both.
Setting with Bimpe
- I thought this part, albeit quiet, was very well done. Bimpe had a lot of good information, although I wouldn’t have called it “Setting”. The focus on the main character and the fact that her physical attributes were more dominant was important. And the pointing out of different direct references to the text was very solid (ie. The supported comparison of women to dogs).
As the group moved back to the title of the story, I felt the explanation of the title could have been stronger. There was no mention of country as uncivilized or unrefined or the preparation to meet characters from the country or preparation of the diction that was to come. The idea that “country” could have meant “countries” as in Japan or Canada was good but there was too much time spent on the connotation of the title and too little time spent on the significance. The group did, however, bring in the irony of the of the move from country to city (Washington, DC) and that the characters could not escape their poverty.
Overall, I loved the idea to focus on the first and last paragraph – it was a great way to include your audience, who was unfamiliar with the text. There was a little too much time wasted on reading the last page of the story and perhaps the audience did not know what to focus on. The group could have focused on the bathtub scene and again on the eggs, as it came up later in discussion. This could have been done on overhead, like the first paragraph had been effectively explained.
Near the end of the presentation, the main ideas about the story began to come out. I loved the EGGS theory, though the actual explanation of the theory was a bit confusing by the end. Quotes/references from the text would have helped to ground the theory. The focus on the washtub scene was interesting and would have created good discussion had time allowed.
21/30
12:09 PM
