COMMENTARY - THE WOMANIZER

My interpretation was almost completely different!

Themes: I talked about modern society (it's a post-modern text) and how there was a conflict between
cultures ( French and English), and how children growing up in ''melting pot'' societies often felt
frustrated (Leo's example). Even though I wish I'd written more about the egg as a symbol of this
frustration.

Oh and of course probably the sexual freedom present there.

Characterization:

Austin: (As the point of view is third person limited omniscient, the descriptions kind of show
Josephine and Leo from Austin's perspective) I thought that Austin's character was portrayed as a guy
who was overly concerned with physical appearances ( he carefully notes what Josephine and Leo
are wearing, and is initially a bit put off by J's pants, and soon after wants to kiss her when he realises
she looks pretty) and how he wants to make a good impression (He learns French for Leo and gets
him a present, and also feels awkward with him around)

I chose The Womanizer! full of characterization and conflict!

My thesis was:

Ford uses descriptive diction, characterization, and narrative style in order to illustrate various
conflicts between the characters to foreshadow future events.

Some of the things I talked about:

For Diction:

The kiss in the beginning (descriptive dictions suggests that Josephine is in love with Austin)

The description of Josephine's dress (white shows how she wants to be perceived as pure;
loud colors of the trousers indicate how she wants to attract attention. Also presents conflict
since Austin doesn't like them that much)

French conversation between Leo and Josephine and the fact that Austin can't speak it
(portrays a conflict)

The description of Leo's shirt (red Cadillac is the symbol of America and the fact that it says
"All American Luxury" on his shirt shows how they might be immigrants)

I said some other stuff as well.. but I can't remember

Characterization:

Austin: Attracted to Josephine (cause at some point it says "Josephine looked pretty and
Austin wanted to go to her and kiss her again). Also tries to connect with Leo (the egg - as a
motif - and the fact that he memorized some French are both used to highlight this
 Leo: Is not comfortable with Austin (portrayed by his reaction to Austin's present) and
highlights the conflict between them

Josephine: Is selfish (highlighted by the chronology of the passage: she opens the door,
kisses Austin, goes back to geting ready, asks Austin how he is... She basically doesn't care
about Leo! She doesn't explain anything and she doesn't even ask how he feels about all this.
All she says is that "[Leo] is very mixed up". This is another conflict presented

Third Person Omniscient Narration:

Is used to portray character emotions (how Austin feels about Josephine)

Is used to develop the conflict between Leo and Austin (since Leo doesn't talk and his feelings
about Austin are explained by the narrator)

Conclusion:

I basically summed up everything and then said it's foreshadowing an unsuccessful

relationship (lust?) because of the title of the text and these conflicts:

1. Austin and Josephine: He doesn't like her pants that much - They come from different
backgrounds (French and American)

2. Austin and Leo: Austin tries but to Leo, he's a complete stranger - Different languages and
how they can't communicate - The ending of the passage (Leo hurts Austin and runs away
and shouts the door behind himself, forcefully isolating himself from the conflict)

3. Leo and Josephine: Josephine doesn't seem to care about Leo that much

I think I did good but I wish I mentioned something about the part where Austin sympathizes with
Leo... That was significant.

By the way, the book is actually about a married American salesman who goes to Paris and meets
this French single mother and falls in love with her. She doesn't love him that much and the
relationship fails. Austin goes back to America to his wife. It kinda doesn't match with what I said; I
kinda said Austin is "The Womanizer" and Josephine (who is a French immigrant in the US) is gonna
get hurt in this lustful affair.

Definitely one of the easiest paper 1 passages for HL! We've done so many past papers in our class
but this one was the most straightforward one!

I didn't even read the poem after reading the prose halfway through!

How did you guys do? What do you think about my outline?

I think whatever you have said makes sense as long as your chose examples are well supported.

I focused heavily on symoblism of the egg, the french vs. english clash of cultures and the useage of
dialogues to help juxtapose the differences in the language and to carry along action etc, and imagery
to build up the characters of the woman and Austin and how Austin's reaction to the pants the woman
wears and combining that with the title "The Womanizer" what this says about him though it's a bit
ambiguous since afterall, they might be serious because he is meeting her child for the first time and
tried hard to win over his affection.
I can't remember what else I said just remember a lot of focus on characterization through visual
imagery, build up of the conflict between Leo and Austin through kinesthetic imagery like in the
beginning with Austin is coming up the stairs and later when Leo keeps lashing out at the egg with his
drumsticks, symbol of the egg like I mentioned, usage of dialogues all over...

But I was wondering, in the passage I noticed a lot of things I didn't get the chance to mention. Like
specific similes and some random things that I felt related heavily to Leo's character and background
and might have contributed to the building up of the conflict -- but I ran out of time. I had about 5
minutes left when I realized I hadn't managed to cover EVERYTHING I had brainstormed so I just
finished up my point and tried to end with a decent conclusion. I found this passage relatively easy,
despite being very dry, and I was pretty happy with how much I came up with since sometimes its
hard to disect a passage you find extremely uninteresting. But if I have only been able to focus
primarily on whatever I have mentioned above can I get penalized for not mentioning even more?
Luckily whatever I introduced in my intro was covered and disected appropriately (from what I
remember) so it's not like I've introduced and idea and then not gotten to to it... and it seems like since
people had very different ideas it's not possible that we all spoke about every device in the passage or
every effect it could have had, right? So I'll be okay if the content is viable, sound, and well-supported
and drawn back into the overall context .