Apocalyptic Fiction Q&A
Question: What makes the short story There Will Come Soft Rains so compelling? How are you able to tell an apocalyptic fiction story if there are no humans left to tell the story?
Answer:
One of the things that makes Soft Rains so interesting is the fact that it isn't told from the perspective of a human being, but rather the outside world. The story is told from the perspective of the rest of the world, which only has the last house to focus on. The story could've just as easily been told from the perspective of an onlooker, but the fact that it was written in third person makes the setting feel a lot more distant, a lot more barren. In addition, with it being in third person, the story can continue to go on, even after the house get destroyed, which helps to show the broader picture of the post-apocalyptic scenario
One of the other things that makes Soft Rains so interesting to read is the type of language it has.
Answer:
One of the things that makes Soft Rains so interesting is the fact that it isn't told from the perspective of a human being, but rather the outside world. The story is told from the perspective of the rest of the world, which only has the last house to focus on. The story could've just as easily been told from the perspective of an onlooker, but the fact that it was written in third person makes the setting feel a lot more distant, a lot more barren. In addition, with it being in third person, the story can continue to go on, even after the house get destroyed, which helps to show the broader picture of the post-apocalyptic scenario
One of the other things that makes Soft Rains so interesting to read is the type of language it has.
Nice post. I totally agree with you. The fact that the perspective is that of a house is super compelling and made me realize the power of personification. I was able to sympathize with a house which made me appreciate this work that much more.
ReplyDeleteI think another essential part to the narrative is the use of personification of the house and the automated things within it. The story focuses on the house which is an inanimate object, but the careful descriptions within the story make the house not only into a sentient character with loyalty to the now dead homeowners and fear of the fire, but almost like an ecosystem with all the small robot mice and holographic animals. the fire also turns into a character, as the vengeful force of nature destroying the last parts of the human civilization. all these descriptions turn the house into a character that makes the story compelling.
ReplyDeleteI found the perspective of the house to be extremely strange as I was initially reading the story. However, as I read further, I appreciated the extent of the objectivity. I agree with your point that the perspective of the story allows it to progress even after the house is consumed by fire.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree; having the story in the house's perspective makes it a lot more interesting to read. As Sam said, the personification of the house really adds to the story, as it is something we're not used to seeing. I feel like it wouldn't really be possible for the story to be in the POV of an onlooker because all the humans have died. I agree that even after the fire destroys the house, having it in third person allows the story to continue on.
ReplyDeleteIt's always terrifying to imagine an apocalyptic world, especially today as many institutions, including universities, sports games, and even world political meetings are being cancelled due to the Coronavirus outbreak. Yet somehow, I think you're right that it's most chilling with this story, surprisingly due to the LACK of humans. Mankind is a snake that eats its own tail, yet the scariest thing is what we leave...
ReplyDeleteOne of the strange things about this story is that the reader expects a character to be introduced soon, however the reader soon realized the house is a "character". Like you said, this way of narration makes it much more interesting, and adds to the different style of story. If there was a human character, it would not seem like a post-apocalyptic world.
ReplyDeleteI agree that setting the perspective to an outside nonhuman observer adds to the story. The vibe I got initially from the story was a quaint, wholesome, house that had slight oddities which being to reveal more and more gloomy implications for the world. Not having a human perspective adds to that effect. There is something wrong I initially felt that I couldn't put my finger on, which turned out to be the lack of humans in the story, including the narrator.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that the story's unique non-human point of view makes it compelling. The third person narration not only feels distant, but adds an element of uncertainty to the story. The story does not include any human characters, but some people interpret the descriptions of what the house does as humanizing it, which complicates the idea you discuss. Depending on how you interpret the story, you could still make the claim that the story has a "human protagonist," the house (Or, at least, a "character" that readers can sympathize with).
ReplyDelete