Week 3 Reading - Relation to Lohafer's preclosure experiment

Lohafer's analysis for the thought process of reading a short story is one that is inevitably picked up by readers of any type of literature throughout the course of their lives. It is a process that is not necessarily taught. Rather, it is a process that is invoked, respected, and progressed. Lohafer specifically states that story writing should not be taught to aid story reading. Lohafer's analysis exists solely on the identification of preclosure choices. Once these preclosure choices are identified, it is interesting to look for other ways, other than recognizing the signals that prompted them, to characterize both the sentences themselves and the portion of the text where they presumably end. Ultimately, the text rewards its readers for looking for and examining these means of characterization. It confirms the importance of experience shaped by goals and their outcomes.

I chose only one alternate ending to "The Man in the Well." This story is particularly short, and although the majority of it is repetitive, the second half is the most important part. The first half is mostly repetitive because it consists solely of the man telling the children to get help. The children's response to the man never changes. Although they reassure him that help is on the way, they never actually attempt to get help. Instead, they bring him food and water day after day. As repetitive as it is, the first half of the story still contains value because it establishes the topic of responsibility, which is nonexitent in children of such a young age. I chose sentence 152 as an alternate ending. Sentence 152 states the following: "But we couldn't do anything, none of us did -- because then he would know." Although this sentence precedes a paragraph break, and paragraph breaks are the most common place for an ending to occur, it is not possible for the story to end before this sentence. Up to this point in the story, both major themes have been revealed. It is necessary for the reader to reach the point in the plot where Wendy says Aaron's name. Then, in spite of his name being revealed, Aaron says everyone else's name. Finally, it is necessary to read about the man's persistence with saying each child's name and the reaction each child has when he says it. Each of these points in the story introduce and reinforce conflicts of identity within the children.