I would like to focus yet again on Zaphod Beeblbrox and how the author presents him. In both of my post describing the hermeneutic values within the text that include Zaphod, I think there is also a form being constructed. Zaphod is presented not as an evil man, but he is self-relecting and I assumed he was an evil man because of his actions. He stole a prized spaceship containing a top secret device? He must be evil, right? And so I read on thinking that the author had established the villain of the novel and that I would eventually meet up with him again. That was my expectation and why I believe this part of the novel falls under syllogistic progressive form.
A peripety resulted from this expectation. A peripety is a reversal in the audience’s expectations due to necessity. The next time Zaphod is in a chapter, he is on the stolen spaceship, Heart of Gold, with his comrades and stolen device, the Infinite Improbability Drive. It didn’t seem like he was planning to use it to destroy the galaxy or anything like that. He was like an excited child who got a new toy aid in even greater matters. In my last blog post I was muddled at my inability to recognize Zaphod’s generally good-natured decisions. After reviewing the section on form and genre, I see that it was the author’s use of a peripety that deluded me.
I believed Zaphod to be evil and the author never comes right out and says that he’s not (why would he?). Seeing Zaphod on a spaceship, exploring, with associates was like a revelation. My expectations were reversed and necessary because for me to keep reading, I would have to change my projections for Zaphod and step into accept who he really is. In the form and genre section it says, “Robert Olen Butler calls this effect of form the rub: "the unexpected thing that nevertheless feels just right" (84).” That’s exactly how I felt as I read on and learned more about Zaphod through his curious actions. It just felt right to assume he was not evil and continue on with the story. I won’t be stumped again though, as I am now suspicious of Zaphod and think that the author is presenting him in a chip manner so that he can yet again use a peripety where Zaphod would actually turn out to be evil like many readers probably expected at first, and later ditched.
A peripety resulted from this expectation. A peripety is a reversal in the audience’s expectations due to necessity. The next time Zaphod is in a chapter, he is on the stolen spaceship, Heart of Gold, with his comrades and stolen device, the Infinite Improbability Drive. It didn’t seem like he was planning to use it to destroy the galaxy or anything like that. He was like an excited child who got a new toy aid in even greater matters. In my last blog post I was muddled at my inability to recognize Zaphod’s generally good-natured decisions. After reviewing the section on form and genre, I see that it was the author’s use of a peripety that deluded me.
I believed Zaphod to be evil and the author never comes right out and says that he’s not (why would he?). Seeing Zaphod on a spaceship, exploring, with associates was like a revelation. My expectations were reversed and necessary because for me to keep reading, I would have to change my projections for Zaphod and step into accept who he really is. In the form and genre section it says, “Robert Olen Butler calls this effect of form the rub: "the unexpected thing that nevertheless feels just right" (84).” That’s exactly how I felt as I read on and learned more about Zaphod through his curious actions. It just felt right to assume he was not evil and continue on with the story. I won’t be stumped again though, as I am now suspicious of Zaphod and think that the author is presenting him in a chip manner so that he can yet again use a peripety where Zaphod would actually turn out to be evil like many readers probably expected at first, and later ditched.