Sherman Alexie's This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona
Sherman Alexie is an American poet, writer, and filmmaker, which was raised on the Spokane Indian Reservations. Alexie's literary work shows the reality of how modern Native Americans faced poverty, alcoholism, and violence on and off the reservations. In addition, unlike many authors Alexie uses gallows humor to lighten the darkness in some of his stories. Most of Alexie’s stories do not deal with life on the reservations; most of his stories are life experiences that can influence readers to overcome situations in life. Alexie’s short story “This Is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona” is a powerful written novel that brings two ex-friends together to overcome challenges in life. This story is about two characters Victor and Thomas Build-The-Fire,
…show more content…
I believe Alexie took a great approach to use a third-person narrator instead of first-person. If Alexie token the participant narrator approach, I believe it would have been hard for readers to understand Victor’s emotions due to his father’s death, because Victor did not understand his own feelings and used Thomas to reflect on his feelings without knowing. Additionally, by using an omniscient narrator, we can witness the story in another depth; without just knowing Victor’s storyline, we also know …show more content…
Sherman Alexie made the right choice to use an omniscient narrator to explain the journey of the two boys, while showing editorial omniscience. If Alexie used an unreliable narrator, readers would not know the thoughts of other characters who help build the foundation of the story, or the unreliable narrator would persuade readers that they made the correct choices without knowing the facts. For example, if Victor was the narrator, he may portray everyone to think everyone in the tribe is against him in life; due to poverty, the death of his father, and circumstances he faced. Furthermore, we would not have the stories of Thomas, who gave the comparison of the Phoenix and Victor, and readers would not know why the two really parted in their
I believe Alexie took a great approach to use a third-person narrator instead of first-person. If Alexie token the participant narrator approach, I believe it would have been hard for readers to understand Victor’s emotions due to his father’s death, because Victor did not understand his own feelings and used Thomas to reflect on his feelings without knowing. Additionally, by using an omniscient narrator, we can witness the story in another depth; without just knowing Victor’s storyline, we also know …show more content…
Sherman Alexie made the right choice to use an omniscient narrator to explain the journey of the two boys, while showing editorial omniscience. If Alexie used an unreliable narrator, readers would not know the thoughts of other characters who help build the foundation of the story, or the unreliable narrator would persuade readers that they made the correct choices without knowing the facts. For example, if Victor was the narrator, he may portray everyone to think everyone in the tribe is against him in life; due to poverty, the death of his father, and circumstances he faced. Furthermore, we would not have the stories of Thomas, who gave the comparison of the Phoenix and Victor, and readers would not know why the two really parted in their