Article Critique Example: Visible Only in Speech

Summary 

The article chosen for this critique “'Visible Only in Speech': Peripatetic Parasitism, Or, Becoming Bedbugs in Open City” by Rebecca Clark. This article focuses on Julius’ narration style through Open City and compares the narration to parasites. The article points out how throughout the narration, there is a presence of birds and bugs, and although people have the idea that Julius would relate to the birds, Clark argues that Julius is the opposite of a bird (186). Clark states that narration related to birds would have a “forward progress” throughout the story and would have a clear view of everything going on within the story, which is then compared to Julius’ narration, which is “constraining and unreliable” (186). According to the article, comparing Julius’ narration style to something negative, like a parasite, would be suitable because he takes a story and does not retell it as it should be, instead, he narrates them in a way that changes the gravity of what is happening in the story (Clark 189). Julius also finds a way of bringing up trauma in every setting and location of the story he has been, making a public space more personal and “uncomfortably semi-private" (Clark 189). 

The article was structured in a way that introduced Open City first to provide background knowledge about the novel to the reader. There is significant detail about different interpretation of narrations and different theories that can be used to explain the reason for other narration styles. Furthermore, when the author discusses Julius’ narrations, he is related to Frued’s theories when the speculation of Julius “forgetting that he raped Moji” when comparing how he felt about the potential assault of his own grandmother during the war (Clark 184). Then, the article progresses into defining the differences between bird and parasitic narration styles, which also progresses into arguing that Julius has the parasitic style of narration.  

As evidence that Julius’ narration style is parasitic opposed to a bird style narration, Clark explains that Julius has a “flat affect” when retelling how Moji confronts him about the assault he committed and directs the attention on the worry “she would begin to cry” but feeling “relief” that she did not (Clark 195 ; Cole 246). The second form of evidence that is used for this argument is the fact that “trauma is Julius’ narrative obsession” and how he “violates the status of boundaries both fictional and physical” (Clark 197). 

Evaluation of Argument and Structure 

The thesis of this article was that Julius’ narration style was “constraining and unreliable,” while also taking up most of his narration with topics of trauma, like a parasite (Clark 186). This point is consistent throughout the entire article and the negative aspects of Julius’ narration are constantly recognized. The article helps the reader understand that although Julius goes bird watching and analyzes their habits in detail, it is a way to create a deceptive image of himself in terms of being open minded and having a bird's eye view of everything unfolding around him. Clark constantly reminds the reader of Julius’ habits of not having an open mind and only focusing on what he wants.  

Some evidence provided by the article is Julius’ obsession with trauma, which is heavily repeated throughout the article to highlight his parasitic aspect of narrating. As mentioned before, Julius’ way of handling Moji’s confrontation of the assault he committed that has traumatized her for a substantial portion of her life was one example that has already been mentioned. Instead of repenting and focusing on narrating the emotional distress or what she was like during this scene, he decides to only focus on how he felt about it and only focusing on the fact he was glad Moji did not cry during the confrontation (Clark 195). Along with this, the article uses subtle patterns within his narration as well, and how he “spends most of the novel telling other peoples' stories, feeding off of their unacknowledged personal trauma” (Clark 192). The evidence in the article took some subtle points throughout the novel that are easy to miss and gathers many important things that most readers would not notice. One thing that could be mentioned when arguing how Julius is a parasitic narrator, is the fact that no quotations are ever used when characters are supposed to be talking. This point would be able to make an even stronger argument since the author mentions the fact that Julius likes to talk about other people’s trauma and experiences without letting them tell their own stories (Clark 192).  

The beginning of the article is a bit hard to follow, because of the introduction of several different theories used in literature that pertain to various kinds of narrators. In literature, it is important to introduce everything that is important to understand so that the reader can follow through with the argument being made, however, the explanation of the theories almost distracts the reader from the main argument. Although the whole point of the article was to prove that Julius was a parasite like narrator, but the descriptions of theories were taking up at least half of the article. However, the segment of the article that does talk about the actual argument of parasitic narration, the points are made clearly and are convincing.  

Taking all these factors into account, the article did create a powerful and convincing argument of the novel’s interpretation. The article had an in-depth analysis of Julius’ narration and made it clear that the symbolism of birds in Open City is a way to deceive the reader into believing that they are related to Julius. Instead, the article collected a lot of compelling evidence of him being the bed bugs in Dr. Saito’s apartment, which were easily forgotten by the reader compared to the birds.  

Evaluation of Relevance 

The argument of this article would be beneficial for the argumentative essay, because my topic was about Julius being an unreliable narrator who does not completely understand himself. Some of the points made in my article are about how he does not focus on anyone there than himself when he is talking about or with other people. One of the first points made in my argumentative essays was his way of making himself seem more trustworthy, which can also tie into the point the article makes about his obsession with trauma. It is ironic that Julius, as a psychiatrist, had to understand and be mindful of his patients’ trauma, and the article points out that he always shares or forces experiences of trauma when another character talks about their life. This can help my thesis of Julius not fully understanding himself or not realizing his own doings of representing others trauma without letting the people speak for themselves.  

The article also has the same arguments made in my last paragraph about the way Julius talks about his own grandmother’s assault and how he forgets his own actions towards Moji while recounting this event. This part of the article would help prove that this is not something that only one person is pointing out, and rather something that many people who have read Open City find odd and insensitive on Julius’ behalf. Along with this point, there are other arguments made I my essay that can add onto the points in the article and vice-versa. However, the article leans towards the assumption that Julius is aware of all his negative actions and tries hiding them during his narration, while my points question whether he was truly aware of his actions or if he was truly oblivious to his doings.  

Overall, the article would strengthen my thesis and add great points that I have not mentioned throughout my essay. My essay and the article both highlight the ways Julius is not trustworthy and how Julius twists the events that happen to his own liking. In my essay, it is likely that I would use certain points made as supporting evidence that the points I make are simply a one-sided perspective.