ANTI-EPIPHANY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RAYMOND CARVER”S CATHEDRAL AND EBRAHIM GOLESTAN”S THE STREAM and THE WALL and THE THIRST

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

 ANTI-EPIPHANY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RAYMOND CARVER”S CATHEDRAL AND EBRAHIM GOLESTAN”S THE STREAM and THE WALL and THE THIRST دارای ۱۲ صفحه می باشد و دارای تنظیمات در microsoft word می باشد و آماده پرینت یا چاپ است

فایل ورد ANTI-EPIPHANY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RAYMOND CARVER”S CATHEDRAL AND EBRAHIM GOLESTAN”S THE STREAM and THE WALL and THE THIRST  کاملا فرمت بندی و تنظیم شده در استاندارد دانشگاه  و مراکز دولتی می باشد.

توجه : در صورت  مشاهده  بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل ورد می باشد و در فایل اصلی ANTI-EPIPHANY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RAYMOND CARVER”S CATHEDRAL AND EBRAHIM GOLESTAN”S THE STREAM and THE WALL and THE THIRST،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

بخشی از متن ANTI-EPIPHANY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RAYMOND CARVER”S CATHEDRAL AND EBRAHIM GOLESTAN”S THE STREAM and THE WALL and THE THIRST :

تعداد صفحات :۱۲

چکیده مقاله:

The present article is an attempt to carry out a comparative analysis between Raymond Carver”s Cathedral (1989) and Ebrahim Golestan”s The Stream, The Wall, The Thirst (1351) in their deep structure. This paper analyzes only one factor of this structure which is “anti-epiphanies” or abruptness or disconnections at endings. Most of Carver”s and Golestan”s short stories display clinching moments of revelation or realization that come usually at the end but in their fiction we are often left with “anti-epiphanies,” where the realization, at least for the characters, does not come. Günter Leypoldt (2001) calls this technique, arrested epiphany ; that is, a type of epiphany identified by a distinct disparity between characters” feeling of realization and his or her lack of understanding what sort of insight it is providing. This article focuses mostly on the endings of the stories in these two short story collections to see how this realization or revelation is achieved. Reading Carver (1981) and Golestan (1351) for the issue of anti-epiphany, it can be concluded that they both share the same approach since the characters and readers are left frustrated at the end of their stories because of their lack of understanding of the realizations. Their stories end in abruptness or disconnections