J. F. Peirce’s “Stephen Crane’s use of Figurative Language in ‘The Blue Hotel’” argues that despite its faults in the story, Crane’s use of imaginative and figurative language trumps the negative aspects. To defend his assertion, Peirce compiles all of Crane’s best writing qualities and analyzes them.
Peirce begins by prefacing with Crane’s financial struggle as an American writer. Crane spent most of his life in debt and used writing literature to survive. With pressure to produce works, Crane created stories quickly without much editing. It is impressive how exceptional his stories are, and “is a tribute to his genius” (Peirce 161).
Peirce explains the story’s biggest shortcoming—Crane’s flat and “two-dimensional” characters that serve a non-distinct role or change. All the reader learns of Johnnie is that he is quarrelsome and cheats in card games. The Easterner is just as nebulous; he spends most of his time silent and reserved. Scully is developed to a deeper level, and that is only into a stereotypical Irishman. Only the Swede changes; however, his changes are “poorly motivated” (162). Strangely, Peirce reveals, the Gambler receives much unnecessary attention to detail in his back story.
The real structure of the story, Peirce points out ambiguously, lies in the five card games that are …show more content…
For instance, when Crane writes ‘the company of low clapboard,’ company is used in the sense of a “group” or “army unit.” When Scully says, ‘you are under my roof,’ Crane is using roof to mean “home.” In the story, Scully is heard “jabbering,” the Easterner’s teeth are “chattering,” and the Cowboy’s “whang” echoes as he slams cards down on the table—all of which evoke an image to be felt (164). What is needed to fully understand the story is what the reader “brings to the story, like the dead Swede who above his head reads ‘this registers the amount of your purchase’”
Peirce begins by prefacing with Crane’s financial struggle as an American writer. Crane spent most of his life in debt and used writing literature to survive. With pressure to produce works, Crane created stories quickly without much editing. It is impressive how exceptional his stories are, and “is a tribute to his genius” (Peirce 161).
Peirce explains the story’s biggest shortcoming—Crane’s flat and “two-dimensional” characters that serve a non-distinct role or change. All the reader learns of Johnnie is that he is quarrelsome and cheats in card games. The Easterner is just as nebulous; he spends most of his time silent and reserved. Scully is developed to a deeper level, and that is only into a stereotypical Irishman. Only the Swede changes; however, his changes are “poorly motivated” (162). Strangely, Peirce reveals, the Gambler receives much unnecessary attention to detail in his back story.
The real structure of the story, Peirce points out ambiguously, lies in the five card games that are …show more content…
For instance, when Crane writes ‘the company of low clapboard,’ company is used in the sense of a “group” or “army unit.” When Scully says, ‘you are under my roof,’ Crane is using roof to mean “home.” In the story, Scully is heard “jabbering,” the Easterner’s teeth are “chattering,” and the Cowboy’s “whang” echoes as he slams cards down on the table—all of which evoke an image to be felt (164). What is needed to fully understand the story is what the reader “brings to the story, like the dead Swede who above his head reads ‘this registers the amount of your purchase’”