FoRmAlIsM

As far as the formalists are concerned each peace of literature is the one and only of its kind. "Formalism attempts to treat each work as its own distinct piece, free from its environment, era, and even author." Formalist writing is supposed to be creative and uninfluenced by anything around it.

The PWB can indeed me considered formalistic for more than one reason. It is on of the only book of its kind about the Congo and white people living in sync with black people. The Price family did not come into the village and dominate and live well while the villagers suffered, it was the other way around. An unheard of story in that time. Ruth May managed to get the black children playing "Mother May I?" AND get them to understand her directions. That is indeed a unique scene. The characters themselves do not seem to allow themselves tobe influenced by their surroundings. Rachel criticizes the natives clothes, mother did not pay closer attention to Mama Tataba when she cooked or cleaned, Father did not believed Mama Tataba about the garden it goes on and on. The mother's opinion is strangest of all, she is glancing back the story and reflecting on events that have no yet happened for us as readers, that also makes the novel stand out and perhaps fall under the category of formalistic. However Barbara Kingsolver did allow her passion and knowledge of nature effect this book by putting  in the endless reference sand scenes about the nature in Africa and describing. That detail may rule it out of the formalistic area. 


LINKYYY

Apocalypse Now!!

     There were two things that struck me as wildly different in the movie than in the book. For one Kurtz was a military man who forced his way back into Vietnam but without a purpose really. The second difference was the end scene of Kurtz's death.
     In the book HOD Kurtz had a purpose, he was extracting ivory. However his ways were a bit unorthodox to the people around him. Not only was he extracting the most ivory from the surroundings but he was also killing the least amount of natives. And his passion was his ivory. In the movie Kurtz didn't seem to have a purpose for being in Vietnam. While matching the book Kurtz is treated and revered as a god he isn't taking advantage of the natives. He isn't even in Vietnam anymore he is in Cambodia. So it is strange to me that they chose for that to be a plot of the film.
     As for the end, Willard kills Kurtz by his own will. How can someone who holds a man so highly kill him? In HOD Marlow was effected by the death of Kurtz he would never dream of killing him, he wanted him to live. Marlow wanted to hear about his plans and his techniques; not let them die in the grave with him. Willard is now revered as the new god like figure however Marlow would have been killed by the natives had he pulled such a stunt.
     Of course the entire movie was different but those two huge plot changes did not settle well with alluding to the book at all.