Imaginative Writing in Context Idea

A loner is at a train station in the first seen and is mentally disturbed, except this is not apparent yet. A crow attacks him
and nobody sees him. This crow gouges out his eye. He does not go to the police or call an ambulance but tends to the
injuries himself. When he goes to work after the weekend (he is a business man) nobody seems to think it strange that he
has no eyes. He does not know anyone, and no one will testify that he has not always been blind when he finally goes to
the police. He is distraught that people do not believe him and that they could think that he has always had one less eye.
He begins to be consumed by a fear for avians and particularly crows. At the train station on the way home he sees a
crow and delusionary starts imagining all these terrible things happening to him. Finally, consumed by madness he rushes
up the crow, grabs out and screams at it as loud as he can. Nobody is around still. He plunges his hand into the birds body
and rips out its heart. He is disgusted by what he is done and is even more terrified. He makes his way to the police
station. He is interviewed by a policeman who does not like him and thinks he is a bit crazy. Why didn’t he see a doctor?
Why are there no scratches or anything? Why didn’t he see me earlier? The loner just tells the police man about being
attacked not his murdering of the bird. The policemen is shocked to find that the business name that Dominic gives does
not have him listen as an employee the policeman suddenly remembers that he had seen a crow earlier that day and
remembers it playing with a button. but, he doubts himself. Was it really a button? Or was it an eye. He is scared but then
decides no it can't be and settles for the preferred reality. As he is being interviewed by the police man everytime the
police says the word crow he silently reels back in his head. Finally, he sees the figure of the policeman slowly morph
into a crow like being, along with all his anxiety, fear and rage transferring onto the police man. He pulls out his pocket
knife held in his blood stained hand and demands the officers eye. He is clearly insane at this point. The officer is like
“what the beep” and pulls out his gun and shoots
Written Explanation: An Eye for an Eye

The intended audience of An Eye for an Eye are fans of psychological horror. This is a well-defined audience and the
elements of my writing are suited to communicate the ideas of the context: ‘Who’s Reality’, appropriately. These are
concepts that frequently explored in other literary examples of this genre. The primary purpose of my piece is to elicit
meaning from the prescribed and supplementary texts. My secondary aim has been to provoke an emotional response in
the audience and to entertain them. The structure and features of my narrative have been chosen to meet these purposes.
The significant philosophical, social and psychological ideas explored in Enduring Love by Ian Mc’Ewan, The Shark Net
by Robert Drewe and A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams provided the inspiration for my writing.

In the context of my work, it is assumed that the reader is aware of the modern values attributed to the those in positions
of responsibility and authority (such as the police officer). The narrative itself represents the struggle between
individuals and society as characterised by Joshua (the individual), his crow (internal conflict) and Dominic (foreign
authority). Traditional social rules (relevant to Joshua’s peculiar public behaviour) and the reverence for life (relevant to
Joshua taking the life of a crow) of the modern world are important to a readers understanding of my writing. These
assumptions predicate the communication of certain ideas within my writing.

Writing an imaginative gives my story and message greater relevance to the context texts and allows my writing to
engage the interests of a greater range of readers. The traditional elements of this form have been subverted in order
emulate the depersonalisation of Joshua’s speech.

I have deliberately employed figurative and literal language. This gives greater meaning to my writing and may appeal to
people who find this interesting.. Plot and dialogue conventions have been adhered to. Although the basic features of an
imaginative piece in the form of a narrative are present, I have made minor deviations from this structure when
appropriate. An example of this is Joshua’s growing tendency to talk in third person narrative.

Ideas

Officer Dominic is comparable to physicist Joe in that both hold positions of public important. They both believe in an
absolute reality. The dislikeable Dominic is noted for sarcastically murmuring “…complete information…objective
thinking..” as Joshua talks to him. Both Joe and Dominic hold the view that if perceptions were not skewed by emotional
involvement or incomplete information, then reality would be consistent for everyone. Assumptions such as these
reflect Joe’ s scientific background and training in scientific method. The rational pursuit of knowledge and truth is
shared by the officer. This may be because of his duty to civil justice.

Furthermore, Joe criticises others for their subjectivity. The reliance of others on “emotion, invention and yearning”
according to Joe, is a flaw scorned by Officer Dominic who finds himself restless and bored by Joshua’s discomposure in
describing the attack. Here I have emulated one of the central ironies of McEwan’s novel. The reader becomes aware that
the officer, who positions himself as the only one capable of objectively establishing the truth about reality is behaving in
a dangerous self-deceiving way. “give me the photos” demands Dominic, intent on establishing the extent of Joshua’s
injuries himself. Like Joe, he is allowing his own biases and emotions to affect the way he sees things. The conflict
between realities and their subjective nature is a theme common to all the prescribed texts and so has been a welcome
base for my own.

Jed Parry’s perversion of the common man’s perception and understanding of reality, fuelled by his love and faith that
bears “no constraints of the theological nicety of religious observances, no social sanction or congregational calling to
account, none of the moral framework that made religion viable”. In the same way, Joshua experiences a reality that is
unrestrained by social expectation. His overriding passion renders this inhibiting factor insignificant. He desire to claim
an eye for an eye from his avian assailant is driven by the desire for moral accountability. When social accountability is
wantonly disregarded by him, which is a construct of group morality, I have intended the reader to understand that the
mechanics of his mind are fundamentally defective . This is comparable to Joe’s disregard for institutional religion whilst
championing faith in religion. I have written Joshua’s character such that he mirrors Jed in that his morality is an
idiosyncratic, self made affair

Within my primary purpose of exploring the ideas of the Who’s Reality context, I particularly sought out to suggest why
people perceive reality differently. In A Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams shows that Blanche’s and Stella’s’
conflicting understandings of reality are shaped by their different emotional needs. Joshua’s markedly different
perception of the world than to the public or Dominic is largely attributed to his inability to control his emotions. He is
consumed by a sense of insecurity and fear is underpinned by his latent derangement that predates his attack by the crow.

I also looked to explore these differently perceived realities themselves. In the memoir The Shark Net, Robert Drewe
reflects on the different ways a shared events may be understood by the boy of his childhood and then as a man. The
events Joshua perceives are of conflicted understanding by himself at the single imminent stage of his life. This was
intended to be even more dramatic than the author of The Shark Net had intended for his own characters.

Language

I have used dialogue in An Eye for an Eye to show that the officer perceives Joshua as mentally disturbed. In Enduring
Love, Clarissa discusses with Joe his convictions that Jed had been with him in the library. Clarissa’s dialogue indicates
to the audience that she believes Joe is behaving irrational and that his grip on reality is somewhat shaky: “But you didn’t
actually see him in the library”. Dominic, who doubts Joshua’s claims, does not outwardly dismiss them. I have used this
dialogue technique to establish a greater sense of Dominic’s character aswell as absurdify Joshua’s initially plausible
statements. This establishes the audiences understanding of the inherent defects in his thought processes which his
dialogue depends upon.. Like McEwan’s Clarissa, my character Dominic makes statements that repeat the more
outlandish sounding claims that Joshua has made with the weight of a cynical insult.

Drewe’s language choices impacts on the way readers interpret the novel in the context of Who’s Reality. In imitation of
The Shark Net, dialogue in my piece echoes what conversational speech is actually like: fragmented, informal and pacy.
This convention, however, is not consistent with all speakers and is varied to differentiate their personalities, function
and position within the story. Thornhill’s ungrammatical use of ‘done’ reflects his lack of education in the supplementary
text The Secret river. In the same way, when the laid back Joshua is first introduced he talks in a laidback and casual
style that distinguishes him as working or middle class character.

Joshua also uses third person narrative in his dialogue to vocalise his interpretation of the crows psyche. For the same
reason as, which is to give himself an apparent sense of objective authority, Joe from Enduring Love is famous for doing
this. I have satirised this aspect of Mc’Ewan’s character. Joe may be noted for his description of the ballooning incident
where he describes those rushing to the scene the perspective of a bird. Meanwhile, Joshua’s delusions are clear to the
reader. To Joshua, the killing of an innocent crow does seem the most rational and justified action to take. He is cold and
calculated in his approach – but only as much a broken calculator can be. I have taken Mc’Ewan’s report on the tendency
for people to enunciate their objectivity and have taken it to an satirical extreme along with his central supposition that
the nature of reality is subjective. Joe’s deceitful use of third person narrative does not make the conundrum of
objectivity as clear. Ian Mc’Ewan, in order to develop a fuller story, would not have taken my approach which would rely
on a character being mentally disturbed – a position already occupied by the Enduring Love’s antagonist.

Similar to Williams, I made Joshua’s deceitful nature initially unobvious. Blanche appears to be the authentic Southern
Belle that she once was when me first meet her . As inconsistencies in both Blanche’s and Joshua’s stories begin to build
up, the audience is gradually disabused to the idea that what they are being told is not true. Our first doubts are aroused
by Stanley when he demands “a few more details” on the subject of her dismissal from the school she was working at as
a teacher. Similarly, Officer Dominic casts the first ray of doubt on Joshua too in his interview with him with his
“Clarissa-style” interview.
The language Williams uses to describe Stanley is revealing. A good example is when he repeats the possessive pronoun
“his” many times in the follow description: “branching out from this complete and satisfying centre are all the auxiliary
channels of his life, such as his heartiness with men, his appreciation of rough humour, his love of good drink and food
and games, his car, his radio , everything that is his that bears his resembles of the gaudy seed bearer”. The way Stanley
speaks discloses his preoccupation with ownership and power. “I am king around here”. Using repetitive language to
classify his characters is a technique that I have mimicked. Converse to Stanley, Joshua is eager to avoid the use of the
word “I” in his speech as the narrative progresses. As he becomes more deranged and detached, he employs
unconventional and elaborate language to avoid it. He does not only distance himself from the world. He distances
himself from his own troubles, his demons, his crow, in vain.

Drewe was clever in his use of ironic narration to signal to the audience that his perception of the past reality he is
retelling has changed significantly over time. For instance, he describes the ‘secret Tarzan game’ that Robert and
Noeleen Ivimey play in her backyard. The narrative voice makes it clear that there is a discrepancy between the way
Robert imagines himself to be and reality of the situation as well as the reality he images of it now of him imagining. In
the crow’s persona, Joshua recalls the story of the attack on his eye and criticizes “his” actions as the crow for not having
gouged out the other eye.

Narrative voice in my imaginative piece that varies between the compelling, personal and reliable point of view of the
narrator characteristic of Robert Drewe’s The Shark Net and a detached third person point of view that subverts the
ability of the audience to relate to Joshua. This is a hybridisation of the natural distancing the reader feels for the novels
Eric Cooke and the relatable Robert Drewe. Drewe’s link to Cooke is such that their personalities are paralleled.
Although distinctly different in character, the mixed reader response to their entire being is emulated in my narrative. In
the same way, stylistic qualities such as use of direct english, spoken english and employing the rule of three are common
to our works. There is also frequent use of proper nouns and verifiable facts in each narratives. The free use of the
sensory details in both writings are used for my purposes by employing contradictory details which are made clear to the
reader as unreliable.

The Shark Net explores how words and sensations that become loaded with association and emotive power affect people
perceptions of reality. Joshua finds himself particularly driven by his encounter with the crow to feel possessive of its
soulless victims such as an aluminium can. This at first seems a justifiable albeit strange response to his trauma.
However, this blows up into chilling cruelty against these creatures for having violated what he considers his ‘own’.
Robert Drewe once saw his mother execute a ‘perfect swallow dive’, which led him to associate her forever with a swim
wear label. Similar, Joshua associates the crows with horrific damage perpetrated against himself.

Character/plot/setting/developmental

The text of The Shark Net by Robert Drewe assisted the initial development of the ideas for my story. Eventually, it
formed the basis for the basic structure of my work. It also provided the general framework for the characters to operate
in their environment. Joshua’s personality is somewhat of a dramatization of the combined personalities of the characters
Robert Drewe and Edgar Cooke.

This is a chronological narrative with a linear plot. A minor subplot involves Joshua’s internal struggle against his inner
demons (symbolised by crows). This resembles the supplementary text called Jindabyne where Stewart and Claire
Kane’s marriage breaks down as the main plot involving the discovery of Susan O’Connor’s body and its impact on
community relations unfolds. I have imitated this deviance from traditional short story narrative plot structure. The
simplicity of this subplot ensures that the plot is not overcomplicated and accessible to all readers.

The setting of the narrative has a special relevance to both the context and the events that unfold. In An Eye for an Eye,
the city of Melbourne represents the blossoming and stable, grey, urban environment where disruptions to the status quo
are the designs of foreign elements. In this way, I have imitated the idyllic setting for The Shark Net prior to rise of the
Perth born serial killer. Through Melbourne, I have rallied belief that the problems of perception and understanding that
Joshua face are based on his own distinctive faults and not inherent in man. I have discreetly challenged Drewe’s
argument that shared circumstance is an unreliable indicator of future behaviour. Contemporary scholars have argued that
the example is a poor one, and undeniable predicted on an incorrect understanding of nature and nurture but not many if
any against the essential premise. The author poses a question for both of our audiences. Why then, despite the parallels
in Drewe and Cooke’s upbringings, do they act do differently? I have argued that the underlying objective assumption,
which is incompatible with the overall subjective stance of the author, is irrelevant and does not consider the magnitude
and variations in human experience. More advanced readers may come to question their notions of moral
apprehensibility. That is the keynote for my argument against Drewe on the experience of reality

In order to suppress an unbearable past and hide the things she has done, Blanche from A Street Car Named Desire
constructs an alternative reality. Joshua similarly does this in order to contort his cruel nature and illusionary sense of
justice into an enterprise for his own safety. Blanche’s use of lies as a copping mechanism and attempts to conceal her
time at the Flamingo in the hope she can hold onto the social acceptance she draws in the eyes of her sister – but not the
rest of the community. Similarly, Joshua’s petty deceptions about his crimes make him think he is seen as socially
acceptable when his atrocities are clear. This links back to the Who’s Reality context. Both Joshua and Blanche are
estranged from the consensus reality.

“how in the hell do you think...” blanche slips into profanity when describing the loss of Belle Reeve as inadvertently as
Joshua does when vocalizing his hatred for the crow: Blanche has emotional difficulty in dealing with the losses she has
suffered whilst Joshua is consumed by self destructive fear Whilst this shows Blanche’s embarrassingly tenuous grip on
the genteel language of the past, it instead accentuates Joshua’s first impression of being a realistic and unremarkable
character.

In the closing lines of my narrative there is a description of the officers name tag. The formerly anonymous officer is
attributed with the most compelling symbol of humanity: a name. As the story progresses his humane failings and biases
become clearer to the reader. Conversely, the initially humane and relatable Joshua’s stride into the realm of insanity and
derangement distances him from the reader as the narrative progresses. This hints to the reader that some other aspects of
my fictional world are not what they initially seem. I have attempted to make the readers think more about not only the
realities of the plots character but at the broader reality. A good example of this is how Dominic feeds the crows at the
train station, oblivious to the atrocities that particular crow has committed. This rellies on the reader being able to
interpret the symbolism that I have described elsewhere in this written explanation.

Both Dominic and Stella have definitive reasons for constructing their alternative realities. While Stella constructs a
reality in which Stanley has not raped Blanche, the officer constructs a reality where the ‘red and light grey marble’ he
had seen a crow playing with on the way home could only be a marble, and not at all anything more sinister. His first
instinct, upon hearing Joshua’s story, was to doubt himself, tinkering on the edge of invalidating his original memory of
the incident. I have made a subtle reference to the revisionist memory of Joe. They are now both able to cope with their
present circumstances – life with Stanley and having fed a bird that had gouged out a human eye. Both characters may
believe the stories they are told but sacrifice an objective reality in favour of one which is more preferable to them.

Similar to Williams, I made Joshua’s deceitful nature initially unapparent. Blanche does appear to be the Southern Belle
that she once was when me first meet her . As consistencies in both Blanche’s and Joshua’s stories begin to build up, the
audience is gradually disabused to the idea that what they are being told is not true. The first doubt is from Stanley when
he demands “a few more details” on the subject of her dismissal from the school she was working at as a teacher. The
officer casts the first ray of doubt on Joshua too in his interview with him with his Clarissa-style discussion .