Narratives are created to amuse others, generate a specific
idea or meaning behind the story, or to even enlighten those with events that
may or may not have happened. All narratives have one common yet specific trait
in that they are basically the definition of storytelling, whether the story is
interesting and funny or dull and depressing. Looking back at Back to the
Lake by Thomas Cooley, a good narrative requires a thorough chronological
order of the events, the plot of the narrative is recognizable and clear for
the audience, and the readers are able to identify the
who/what/when/where/how/why of the story. In addition, explicit details to the
events and/or characters is helpful for the readers in understanding the story
overall.
After reading The Clinic by Jeff Gremmels, I
understand what the boy in the narrative was going through when he went to the
hospital with his mother. When I was younger, I received multiple injuries,
such as tearing my left ligament, fracturing my right elbow, breaking my nose,
dislocating my right shoulder, and even undergoing several concussions. Much
like the character of the boy that had to go to the hospital, my mother acted
the exact way the mother in the narrative did.
As a writer, I liked how Gremmels used dialogue and details
to enhance the experience of the story. Unlike some writers that would not use
dialogue, Gremmels used dialogue to express the opinions and actions of the
characters in the narrative. Adding onto the dialogue, details to the events
helped in describing what was going on and how these events affected the
characters and future occurrences. On the other hand, the one aspect of this
narrative I somewhat disliked was that the narrative was too short of a story.
I mean I understand that it is better to have less, in terms of writing,
because it focuses on the overall message/purpose of the narrative. But I just
wanted to acknowledge the ending of the medical student's case on this boy and
his self-destructive behavior.
The Clinic is about the medical student's story.
Throughout the entire narrative, the medical student was speaking from his
perspective of the case on the boy and his mother. The medical student was
expressing his view on this case to the audience by describing what was going
happen, who was involved, why the boy was injuring himself, etc. This narrative
in not from the boy's viewpoint because the boy was only mentioned by the
doctor as a case and not necessarily as a character like the medical student or
the mother.
I agree with you that Grimmels' use of dialogue was well done as it allowed the readers and Grimmels to understand others perspective in this case, especially the mother's. The mother had not suspected of the abuse and was worried for her son. I find it interesting you have had similar hospital experiences as the little boy; the both of you having gone through severe physical injuries. This interested me as I have never broken a single bone on my body and I couldn't relate to the boy as well as you. However, I disagree with you on the fact that this was merely Grimmels' story. Although the majority of the story is narrated by Grimmels, he spoke of the boy's case and even included the poem written by the boy. The poem gave readers insight into the boy's perspective on life and along with previous information about the boy's lifestyle ("He's very active, normally, and gets into all sorts of spots") and even about his family issues (stepfather's abuse). In a way, it was just as much as the boy's story as it was Grimmels'; Grimmels just happened to be the storyteller of both stories.
ReplyDelete