I believe that this was the assignment tonight, so I will begin. Someone alert me if I do something incorrectly.
Richard Yates' writing style is like a kaleidoscope. It offers many different, vibrant, and beautiful perspectives of what is essentially the same thing repeatedly(ie one views the same beads / pebbles over and over again as the kaleidoscope turns). Each view is distinctly unique, yet at the same time there is a clear relation between one image and another and a level of uniformity/conformity with all the images that can be formed.
Post your comparisons here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Richard Yates's writing style thus far has been like watchng/listening to Bill Cosby: although it may be tricky to understand what he's getting at sometimes, and although he sometimes sends mixed messages about certain elements of the story, once all is said and done, it's pretty darn good (more so for Yates than Bill Cosby, though).
Also, when the Wheelers take the walk with John Givings, we see that he's really not as cracked up as Helen says he is; this makes me ask: is John crazy, or is he just very/too honest?
Yeah, I think it is a combination of both. To go along with that, Helen notes that “John seldom looked happier” chatting with the Wheelers, and after they split their ways, the Wheelers admire his intelligence and honesty. April notes that John is “the first person who’s really seemed to know what we’re talking about”, and Frank says that they are “just as crazy as he [John] is”. To this, they both acknowledge their craziness but say they are fine with it. Why do John and the Wheelers feel such a connection? Do Frank and April, by calling themselves crazy, acknowledge that their plan is actually a bad, rash idea? I think they do, and I bet that this foreshadows potential mishaps ahead for them.
(Should stuff like this go in a separate blog post?)
Richard Yates' writing style is like a piano. Each aspect of his writing is a different key, providing an array of notes to compose the song, Revolutionary Road. Additionally, each key can also be compared to the different perspectives within the town. Each is unique, yet they easily blend together in a song, representing the conformity of the 1950s.
Especially in the 1950s, "crazy" people could easily be nonconformists or just people with ideas and beliefs different from society. I haven't finished reading yet, but I'll reply more in depth once I do.
Richard Yates's writing style is like a magic 8 ball. So far, Yates has used his writing to foreshadow events to come in the future. Although a magic 8 ball does not necessarily show the truth, the point of it is to predict the future (even though the chances of it being correct is not very high). The idea of the magic 8 ball relates to Yates's writing style implies that Yates uses a large amount of foreshadowing/ hinting to what will happen in the future. In addition, the magic 8 ball can give advice. Yates might use his writing style to suggest that he is using the characters to get a message across. I am not quite sure what the message is that Yates is trying to get across, or if there even is one, but it was just a thought that I would put out there.
Richard Yates's writing style is like one of those mirror fun house things (I'm not quite sure what they're called). When you walk in the mirrored room, you see many different versions of essentially the same thing, yourself. This comparison is sort of similar to Clark's i guess because it presents the whole idea of looking at the same theme from many different angles.
Also, I don't think John is crazy. I think the only reason he was put into Green Acres was because he was the sole nonconformist in a very conformist society.
It's called a hall of mirrors, and it's the location of the finale of many action movies!
Richard Yates' writing style is like a Rubik's cube. Each face represents another character's point of view, and mixing up the puzzle allows someone to see the multiple views at the same time, perhaps focusing on one character more if that color is dominant (such as when a chapter focuses on Frank, but still shows the perspectives of the others). It takes some time to solve the cube, just as it takes some times to read the entire book. It is a very clever piece of artwork. (Richard Yates often describes a very detailed image, and this contraption could be considered a work of art). There are multiple ways to look at the cube, and when the puzzle is solved, it looks like every other packaged Rubik's cube.
After finishing the reading, I definitely agree that John Givings seems much more normal and realistic than the conformed people of the town. I think he simply acts out due to his frustration with Helen. I found the passage on page 201 where he describes April as a female and Frank as a male very interesting. I feel that Frank and April have agreed on many of John's ideas, they just have not been as courageous as him to preach it.
Is anyone else really excited to see what happens in the next few chapters? Do you think Frank can stop April?
Richard Yate's writing style is that ambiguous symphony that everyone tries to rebuild and expand.
Every composer, though they may be playing the same symphony, interprets the music differently and the beat. That is Yates. Some composers may go down the deep end :) while some composers may just keep it simple :(, but the beauty of Yate's writing style is that it can work both ways, just like our friend the symphony. GO CLASSICAL MUSIC
Richard Yates' writing style is like watching a soccer game. There are a few different players (characters). We get to see their points of view which is kind of like when each player passes the ball to another. We also never know what the outcome of a game will be, just like we dont know what will happen with April and Frank and various other characters.
These are all so many great similes! Pretty hard to top them..
Richard Yates' writing style is like a book from the TWILIGHT series.(I don't know who has read it but everyone must know what it's about!!) It constantly surprises readers, taking them from one place to another (in this case- from the thoughts/perspective of one character to another). His style simply further engages the readers, by making them question his purpose for doing or saying something.
Throughout Rev. Road, Yates' story of Frank and April-two completely insane, totally lost people- is one filled with tragedy, disappointment, and confusion..at the same time, it is surprising, captivating, and INTERESTING. While the love between Frank and April is completely distorted and deformed, it is still pure, real love (for the most part). As he shows in the dialogue of the novel, as well as the internal thoughts of numerous characters, Yates' diction and tone really make Rev Road the interesting and captivating tale that it is.. In all the Twilight books (Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn), Stephenie Meyer, like Yates, uses her ability to create conflicted, unique characters and generate expert dialogue. Like Yates, the themes of the novels resonate- characters' journeys to self-destruction, the search for identity, and many others. In both Rev Road and the Twilight books, the authors tell magnificent stories.
Wow Clark that was deep!... I guess I would have to agree, in the sense that Richard Yates allows the reader to see the same story over and over but from different peoples perspective.
As we see each family's perspective we notice that they all typically have the same views, with the exception of John Givings, he makes a very profound statement in response to when Frank says that he and April are running from the Hopeless Emptiness of revolutionary road. John then Sates "plenty of people are on to the emptiness but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness." Which i think is very important because it seems like he is the only one who understands why Frank and April really want to leave. Everyone On revolutionary road Feels empty and we can tell but i think that the majority of them fell, but repress the hopelessness.
Richard Yates' writing style is like listening to a comedian because of how at some points it seems almost as if he is making fun of the insanity in April's and Frank's to go to France plan. We see this after John and the Givings have left their home and Frank and April ask themselves if they are as crazy as John. As i read this i exclaimed out loud "yes you both are" and it was at that point that i began to realize that Yates drops hints through this sarcasm that their plan to go to Europe might not be such a good idea.
Going back to why Yates' writing is like listenging to a comedian, he continues to say different things about the Wheelers going to Europe through characters such as April, Frank, Milly, Shep, and the Givings. I think that in the end all of these opinions will come together to form the punchline (comedian reference) of the novel or essentially the ending.
Richard Yates's writing style is like a mosaic in that all the little pieces come together to form the larger picture. All the characters are the tiles, each has a different story but they come together as one to show how people seem to breakdown from the conformity of the 1950's, like what Nikki said. The characters may all come from different backgrounds but living in that time period just seems to make people go nuts.
Richard Yates' writing style is like an Alfred Hitchcock movie. This of course, is without including the thriller aspects of his films. His movies do, however, provide us with a plot in which we think we know what is going to happen, but then a completely different thing happens, and forces the reader/viewer to keep going. This is evident in RR, at least for me, because I believed that either Frank and April would go along with the trip to Paris, or their dream would be shattered by work issues. Instead we find out that April is pregnant, something I never expected to happen. There are always mixed elements, point of view shifts and plot twists.
I think that John is just too honest, and Helen is just like April said, "treating him like an animal," and since Frank treats him like a human being, John opens up and really kind of seems like someone I would like to meet, because he would be a pretty hysterical guy.
I also feel like John and the Wheelers' connect because they are basically part of the same pattern, but John was already there. They are becoming so tired of the suburbs and their conformist lifestyle that they are beginning to act like John did in Arizona, and I think that John sees that in them. I would also say that the plan is not too rash, and it was perfectly planned out and reviewed...but nothing ever goes according to plan, so an obstacle is always imminent.
Woooow! This is actually really cool reading all of these metaphorical interpretations. I especially liked your piano analogy, Nikki.
What I keep thinking as I'm reading this book is that Yates's writing is very much like the screenplay for a movie or little scenes from a play. There are all the characters who seem to have this perfect life on the exterior; what the audience is watching. It's really cool though because we see this outward behavior and what it suggests, but it's almost like some crazy play where you can also hear what's going on in the actors' minds. These inward monologues are really what darken the seemingly untroubled lives that are being acted out. They are what turns the soap opera-esque feel to the play/movie into more of a tradgedy... terrifying on a psychological level.
Richard Yates writing style is like a carasel, all the horses on it are different but they are all going to the same destination, in a circle. The characters of rev. road are all different and have different perspectives yet they all want to and will end up the same way. (settled down with children in suburbia)
Yate's style is like a marble painting. All of the strands of colors have their own paths but intertwine to create a picture, like all of the characters.
Richard Yates' writing style is like an ecosystem. Every parts is essential, and if one is removed, the story, or system, falls apart. For example, if either the children's point of view, or the Campells' point of views were removed, the entire story would not make sense. Also, the parts of an ecosystem rely on each other, as much as the characters' stories in Revolutionary Road depend each other.
Richard Yate's writing style is like an ice cream cone. When looking at an ice cream cone you see the many scoops which looks yummy and great on the outside but when you begin to dig in it becomes messy and a sticky situation like sticky conflicts within the novel. The sprinkles are also colorful that can reflect on the color imagery we talked about in class today how something that looks dull inside the ice cream can look so pretty on the exterior with its sprinkles. Something such as ice cream may look and taste yummy but there are always the negative sides that when you eat too much you gain weight and get stomach aches. With the Wheelers they may look like the perfect family that has everything they ever wanted but really on the inside they continue to fight and conflicts continue to arise.
Richard Yates writing style is also like the sky. Its like the sky because its clear and easy to read. Also, when it is in the point of view of one character is clear and honest (blue). Also, the ky is endless ort of like the hopeless like the Wheelers are living. It is also almost the same looking wherever you are looking at it from. This is representative of the seemingly very similar lives of those in the book. The writing and characters can also be interpreted in different ways, as can clouds.
Richard Yates's writing style is like a a remote control. All of the buttons have specific different functions, but their overall function is the same (to work the tv). In Revolutionary Roads, each character is used for a differernt reason, but they are used overall to show life in the 1950s. Also, just like a remote control, REvolutionary roads starts out as a foreign object, but with time, it becomes more understood.
Richard yaqtes writing style is like a puzzle. each character is their own confusing piece wioth their own set of problems. but once you put together the pieces, you get a story that is much clearer than the other authors we have read.
Post a Comment