Talk:2008 BM1 Assignment 3: Jekyll and Hyde - Revision history

Anna Auguscik at 10:08, 29 July 2008

2008-07-29T10:08:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:08, 29 July 2008
Line 80:		Line 80:
	*aspect with relation [up to 10pts]		*aspect with relation [up to 10pts]
	*aspect with relation, text passages, interpretation, reflection etc [up to 20pts]		*aspect with relation, text passages, interpretation, reflection etc [up to 20pts]

			==Samples from Student Assignments==
			===Question 1===
			In the given passage, which is the beginning of Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, Mr. Utterson is characterised in different ways. On the one hand, by an extraheterodiegetic narrator which describes him from different perspectives (focalisations) (cf. ll. 8ff. “But he had an austere tolerance for others; …” and ll. 22ff. “It was reported by those who
			encountered them …”). On the other hand, he is characterised by himself (cf. ll. 10ff. “I incline…”) and may be even by his name. The name “Utterson” might be a telling name derived from the word “to utter” or “utterance”. This could underline that Mr. Utterson, as a lawyer, is very eloquent and can thereby easily persuade or influence others by his talk. Apart from that, in the given two paragraphs, the narrator characterises Utterson directly by describing his character and his outer appearance (cf. ll. 1ff. “a man of rugged countenance”, “never lighted by a smile”, “cold, […]; lean, long, dusty, dreary and yet somehow lovable”) and indirectly by showing the lawyer’s manners “cf. ll. 7ff. “[…], and though he enjoyed the theatre, [he] had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years”). In his characterisation, the narrator also tells us about his job “cf. l. 26 “[…], but even resisted the calls of business, …”) and his social relationships (cf. ll. 18f. “His friends were those of his own blood or…”). As we can see, the narrator gives, in these first two paragraphs, a quite detailed and diversified characterisation of Mr. Utterson, using different perspectives.
			===Question 2===
			As I already mentioned in the first exercise, the narrator in these first two paragraphs is extraheterodiegetic and uses different focalisations. And as the narrator clearly tells the story after the events “cf. l. 8 “He had an approved tolerance …”, l. 15 “No doubt the feat was easy to Mr. …”, the temporal relation between narration and story is ulterior. The only exception to the extraheterodiegetic narration is Mr. Utterson’s utterance in line 10. However, this one is also told by the narrator to characterise the lawyer. In the first lines (cf. ll. 1-6), the narrator speaks with an external focalisation to describe Utterson (cf. l. 1 “[…] a man of a rugged countenance, …”. From line 6 to line 21, the narrator changes the focalisation to Mr. Utterson. He describes Utterson’s personal thoughts and feelings from the lawyer’s point of view (cf. ll. 6f. “[…], [he] drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; …”). From lines 21 to 24, the focalisers are acquaintances of Entfield and Utterson who have seen them on their weekly walks (cf. l. 21f. “It was a nut to crack for many, what these two could see in each other, …”). And in the last three lines, the focalisation changes one again, this time to Mr. Utterson and Mr. Entfield. The narrator knows their thoughts about their friendship and their “Sunday walks” (l. 23) (cf. ll. 24f. “For all that, the two men put the greatest store by these excursions, …). As Utterson is characterised from different point of views, the imaged of him formed by the narrator appears to be quite reliable.
			===Question 3===
			In this passage, Utterson is described as a person who is rather introverted when it comes to showing emotions (cf. ll. 1-6). And even though he shows those signs of humanity when he is in the state of being a bit drunk, he seems to be righteous, well meaning (cf. ll. 4-6; ll. 8-10) and disciplined man (cf. ll. 6-8). Also, as he is interested in theatre (cf. ll. 7f.) and as he is a lawyer (cf. l. 1), he seems to be an intellectual and culturally interested person. He is also described to be tolerant (cf. ll. 8-10) and as a good friend (cf. ll. 18ff.). But some facts about Utterson seem to break with this image. On the one hand, he refers to the biblical story of Cain and makes a link to his own life (cf. ll. 10f.) and on the other hand, he almost envies (cf. ll. 8ff.) the more criminal ones of his clients. As I already mentioned in the first and second exercise, the different point of views from that Utterson is characterised make the description appear to be very reliable. However, only the first six lines are narrated with external focalisation (cf. exercise 2). Apart from that, the narrator’s focalisation is not neutral. He narrates either from Utterson’s, Entfield’s and Utterson’s or their acquaintances’ point of view. The descriptions they give about themselves (Utterson and Entfield) or about others (acquaintances) are, of course, not neutral and therefore not completely reliable. Keeping this in mind, it is quite possible that there are some facts about Utterson the reader does not and cannot know.
			===Question 4===
			In this passage, most of the focalisation is internal and therefore the point of view and knowledge is limited to only a few persons. This narrative mode occurs throughout the whole book. A good example is the “Carrew Murder Case” (cf. p. 21 – 24). We see the murder through from the point of view of the maid, who involuntarily witnessed this deed. Our knowledge of this case is limited to
			the knowledge of the eyewitness – the maid. Of course, later in the story, we will learn more about it. But as it happens, our knowledge is very limited. This becomes very obvious when she faints “at the horror of these sights and sounds” (cf. p. 22 ll. 9-10). Whatever happened between the time she fainted and the moment she regained her conscience is kept back from the reader (cf. p. 22 ll. 11ff.). Also, her description of the situation might be exaggerated and may be she just thought to have recognized Mr. Hyde as the murderer. This structure of limited knowledge can be found in the whole story. Stevenson of course, intends this. The plot would not be as thrilling and interesting if the reader knew, as an example, about Jekyll’s split personality.
			===Question 5===
			One aspect that is already mentioned in the given two paragraphs and that can be found throughout the plot is the loyalty of Utterson and other characters like Lanyon. At his first appearance, Utterson is described to be a good friend (cf. ll. 18ff.), tolerant (cf. ll. 8-10) and well meaning (cf. ll. 4-6; ll. 8-10). The reliability of his friendship and his tolerant and well meaning character become particularly obvious when it comes to his relationship to Dr. Jekyll. When Utterson decides to see Lanyon in order to learn more about the relation between Jekyll and Hyde, Lanyon tells him that he “sees little of him now” (cf. p. 14).
			Also Lanyon tells him that Jekyll became too “fanciful” for him and that he was “wrong in mind” (cf. p. 14). He also says that Jekyll produces “unscientific balderdash” (cf. p. 14). Utterson has an “unknown disgust” against Hyde, Jekyll’s “new friend” (cf. p. 17) and sole heir, and sees “Satan’s signature” upon his face (cf. p. 17). Nevertheless, he loyally stays at Jekyll’s his side. And even though Utterson’s shows a deep aversion against his friend’s will to pass all his possessions to Hyde in case of a longer disappearance, he agrees do accept and fulfil it nevertheless (cf. p. 12ff.). The first time he realizes that there is something strange about his friend is when he learns about the extreme similarity between Jekyll’s and Hyde’s handwriting (cf. p. 28). However, the climax of loyalty can be seen in “Dr. Lanyon’s Narrative”. Even though Lanyon considers, as mentioned above, Jekyll to be “insane” (cf. p. 43), he fulfils his wish (which leads to Lanyon’s death). He “feels bound to do as he requested” (cf. p. 43). These examples show that loyalty plays an important role throughout the book.

Anna Auguscik at 09:38, 2 July 2008

2008-07-02T09:38:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 2 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Student Discussion==
	Do you have any idea how the direct speech of Utterson fits to his character?		Do you have any idea how the direct speech of Utterson fits to his character?

Line 16:		Line 17:

	Concerning task 5: Is it really necessary that the topic, which I choose to discuss, is mentioned explicitly in the given passage or is it okay when the topic becomes important in a later part of the novel?		Concerning task 5: Is it really necessary that the topic, which I choose to discuss, is mentioned explicitly in the given passage or is it okay when the topic becomes important in a later part of the novel?

			==Model Solution==
			Assignment 3 – Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

			===Question One===
			Aim: Distinguish between direct and indirect characterization, as well reinforcement of characterization by analogy.

			*Examples for direct statements (by narrator):
			:*Utterson – “lawyer”, “yet somehow loveable”, “eminently human” (not in speech, in actions), “austere with himself”; “with envy”; “inclined to help rather than to reprove” (stands in contrast to “Am I my brother’s keeper”); “undemonstrative”, “his affections […] implied no aptness n the object”
			:*Enfield – “well-known man about town”
			:*Second paragraph: interpretation of character; “seemed to be founded in a similar”, “it is the mark of a modest man”; “no doubt” repeated

			*Examples for indirect presentation:
			:*actions (commission/omission): “never lighted by a smile”; gin/vintages; theatre/does not attend; “never marked a shade of change in his demeanour”; Enfield and Utterson look bored during meetings (“many…”)
			:*characteristics of speech: “cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse”; “‘I incline …’”
			:*external appearance: “rugged countenance”
			:*environment: social connection to “distant kinsman”, “friends”

			*Examples for reinforcement of character by analogy:
			:*Utterson – telling name? to utter
			:*Contrast and similarities: down-going men vs. last reputable acquaintance; contrast and similarity in relation to Enfield

			*direct statements by narrator: [7pts]
			*indirect presentation through action (commission/omission): [7pts]
			*contrast/similarities, environment: [3pts]
			*characteristics of speech/ external appearance/ telling names: [3pts]

			===Question Two===
			Aim: Distinguish narration and focalization; describe the level and involvement of the narrative voice (who speaks?), define focalization (who sees?), and comment on the shift in focalization in the second paragraph.

			*Narration: extra-heterodiegetic narrator [5pts + 5pts]
			*Focalization: external focalization from without (i.e. in friendly meetings etc.) [5pts]; focalization shifts in the second paragraph [5pts] “many…”, “it seemed”
			*Bonus points for thoughts on gnomic statement: “It is the mark of a modest man…” (i.e. everyone knows that…), ulterior narration; perceptibility of narrator

			===Question Three===
			Aim: Draw from your results in questions 1 and 2, and comment in three steps on main character features, enigmatic points and incompleteness/unreliability of this information.

			*Examples for main character features [up to 10pts]:
			:*contradictory characteristics – reservedness and self-denial; association with (envy of) people who are unreserved and who have contrasting features
			:*loyalty
			:*habits
			*Examples for enigmatic points [up to 5pts]:
			:*why is it self-denial if you drink gin instead of wine? especially if wine makes you “eminently human”
			:*why is so bad about going to the theatre?
			:*meetings with Enfield – what is the connection between the two men? what can they see in each other?
			*Examples for completeness/ reliability [up to 5pts]:
			:*not complete: family relations (only distant kinsman); why are these men down-going? what are their misdeeds?
			:*not reliable: lack of narrative authority in second paragraph: “no doubt”, “seemed” (limited knowledge, who sees? who is responsible for this information?)

			===Question Four===
			Aim: Draw from your results in question 2 and relate them to the overall narrative structure of the novel which creates an image of events based on multiple perspectives.

			*this passage: extra-heterodiegetic and external-focalization (presentation of Utterson who becomes the main focalizer later on); rest of the novel: mainly Utterson as focalizer [10pts]
			*narrative structure is open, enigmatic; addition of many individual perspectives (letters, maid in Carew case); towards the end: Lanyon and Jekyll (intra-homodiegetic narratives) [10pts]
			*if narrative structure of entire text is described well but is not related to the passage in question: up to 12 pts

			===Question Five===
			Aim: Identify an aspect which is important for this passage and significant for the rest of the text. Use examples from the text and evaluate the significance of the chosen aspect.

			*Examples: duplicity/duality/two sides of character in Utterson and Jekyll; motif of down-going men; different perspectives and uncertainty (“seemed”, “not to crack for many”); importance of Utterson’s character for the rest of the text etc. etc.
			*aspect without relation [up to 5pts]
			*aspect with relation [up to 10pts]
			*aspect with relation, text passages, interpretation, reflection etc [up to 20pts]

Marietta Sonnenschein at 15:48, 23 June 2008

2008-06-23T15:48:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 23 June 2008
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Hi!		Hi!
	i have a little problem with task one.... are we supposed to interpret the characterisations or only identify characterisations and the say which mode they are made in????		i have a little problem with task one.... are we supposed to interpret the characterisations or only identify characterisations and the say which mode they are made in????
			HELP ; )!!!
	greetings --[[User:Marietta Sonnenschein\|Marietta Sonnenschein]] 16:41, 23 June 2008 (CEST)		greetings --[[User:Marietta Sonnenschein\|Marietta Sonnenschein]] 16:41, 23 June 2008 (CEST)

	Concerning task 5: Is it really necessary that the topic, which I choose to discuss, is mentioned explicitly in the given passage or is it okay when the topic becomes important in a later part of the novel?		Concerning task 5: Is it really necessary that the topic, which I choose to discuss, is mentioned explicitly in the given passage or is it okay when the topic becomes important in a later part of the novel?

Alena Ruether at 15:17, 23 June 2008

2008-06-23T15:17:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 23 June 2008
Line 13:		Line 13:
	i have a little problem with task one.... are we supposed to interpret the characterisations or only identify characterisations and the say which mode they are made in????		i have a little problem with task one.... are we supposed to interpret the characterisations or only identify characterisations and the say which mode they are made in????
	greetings --[[User:Marietta Sonnenschein\|Marietta Sonnenschein]] 16:41, 23 June 2008 (CEST)		greetings --[[User:Marietta Sonnenschein\|Marietta Sonnenschein]] 16:41, 23 June 2008 (CEST)

			Concerning task 5: Is it really necessary that the topic, which I choose to discuss, is mentioned explicitly in the given passage or is it okay when the topic becomes important in a later part of the novel?

Marietta Sonnenschein at 14:41, 23 June 2008

2008-06-23T14:41:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 23 June 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:

	::all a question of what you want: "feet back" or "feedback"... --[[User:Olaf Simons\|Olaf Simons]] 13:24, 20 June 2008 (CEST)		::all a question of what you want: "feet back" or "feedback"... --[[User:Olaf Simons\|Olaf Simons]] 13:24, 20 June 2008 (CEST)

			Hi!
			i have a little problem with task one.... are we supposed to interpret the characterisations or only identify characterisations and the say which mode they are made in????
			greetings --[[User:Marietta Sonnenschein\|Marietta Sonnenschein]] 16:41, 23 June 2008 (CEST)

Olaf Simons at 11:24, 20 June 2008

2008-06-20T11:24:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 20 June 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	I am also unsure if I am supposed to write something about the focalisation in question 4. It asks for the narrative mode in this passage in relation to the narrative structure of the whole text. Now I am a little confused, because in my opinion the focalisation must be left out in this part, but on the other hand one cannot make always a clean cut between focalisation and narration. How do you think about about leaving out focalisation in this task?		I am also unsure if I am supposed to write something about the focalisation in question 4. It asks for the narrative mode in this passage in relation to the narrative structure of the whole text. Now I am a little confused, because in my opinion the focalisation must be left out in this part, but on the other hand one cannot make always a clean cut between focalisation and narration. How do you think about about leaving out focalisation in this task?

	Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.		:Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
	And I do appreciate you being 'round.		:And I do appreciate you being 'round.
	Help me get my feet back on the ground,		:Help me get my feet back on the ground,
	Won't you please, please help me? [beatles]		:Won't you please, please help me? [beatles]

			::all a question of what you want: "feet back" or "feedback"... --[[User:Olaf Simons\|Olaf Simons]] 13:24, 20 June 2008 (CEST)

Almut Siepmann at 09:26, 20 June 2008

2008-06-20T09:26:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 20 June 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I am also unsure if I am supposed to write something about the focalisation in question 4. It asks for the narrative mode in this passage in relation to the narrative structure of the whole text. Now I am a little confused, because in my opinion the focalisation must be left out in this part, but on the other hand one cannot make always a clean cut between focalisation and narration. How do you think about about leaving out focalisation in this task?		I am also unsure if I am supposed to write something about the focalisation in question 4. It asks for the narrative mode in this passage in relation to the narrative structure of the whole text. Now I am a little confused, because in my opinion the focalisation must be left out in this part, but on the other hand one cannot make always a clean cut between focalisation and narration. How do you think about about leaving out focalisation in this task?

			Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
			And I do appreciate you being 'round.
			Help me get my feet back on the ground,
			Won't you please, please help me? [beatles]

Almut Siepmann at 06:01, 19 June 2008

2008-06-19T06:01:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:01, 19 June 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Do you have any idea how the direct speech of Utterson fits to his character?		Do you have any idea how the direct speech of Utterson fits to his character?

			I am also unsure if I am supposed to write something about the focalisation in question 4. It asks for the narrative mode in this passage in relation to the narrative structure of the whole text. Now I am a little confused, because in my opinion the focalisation must be left out in this part, but on the other hand one cannot make always a clean cut between focalisation and narration. How do you think about about leaving out focalisation in this task?

Almut Siepmann at 04:14, 19 June 2008

2008-06-19T04:14:23Z

New page

Do you have any idea how the direct speech of Utterson fits to his character?