Reading Response 2

For my part of the discussion, I focused on the first section of Deleyto’s work, and though I will talk about all three sections in the reading response, the primary focus of the reading response will be on section one.

Strengths of the text

Deleyto’s discussion of focalisation and narrative was engaging and interesting to read. The works Deleyto used to support his hypothesis, though old, were still important to the thesis. Including Genette and Bal’s works, as well as Genette’s response to Bal’s works strengthened Deleyto’s overall argument.

Weaknesses of the text

Like the authors of the previous articles we had to do a discussion on, Deleyto relied a little too heavily on outside resources to formulate his ideas. The entirety of section one has maybe a paragraph, at best, of original ideas or explanations of ideas presented in the works cited.

Main idea of the text

The main idea of Deleyto’s work is that focalisation and narration are different in film and novels. Focalisation is not explicit in the text with novels, though it may be explicit in the text with film, because we create our own images based on the descriptive prose of a novel, whereas with a film we can visually see what is explicit by the focaliser.

Driving factor behind the main idea

The driving factor behind the idea that focalisation is different in novels vs film, is that focalisation can be divided into two parts: the focalised and the focaliser. The focalised is the piece, the visual aspect of a work that is selected for a focaliser by a focaliser to view. The focaliser is both the person who views the work, bringing in their own perception, and the person who creates the work. There is both intended and unintended meaning created by the focalisers.

Assumptions made about digital storytelling

Tenability of the assumptions

Main contribution of the text

Interesting ideas from the text

Improvements to the text

Argument believability

Convincing/boundary conditions