Interiority In Olive Kitteridge

As mentioned, when discussing interiority in depth, Scofield explains the four types. These are: response, reflection, interrogation, and commentary (Scofield 32). For the sake of the stories closely read in Olive Kitteridge we will examine how Strout successfully uses reflection and interrogation. First, Scofield explains reflection interiority as, “...a time of considering and weighing aspects of one’s experience. It may result in a new resolve, or an impulse toward forgiveness. It may mire the character in hopeless anguish, or cause her to see things in a way that interprets the behavior of others...it can be wrongheaded as any other aspect of character behavior, but it does involve a little time spent thinking” (33). Now, let’s look back

It is important to note, as Scofield has explained this type of interiority above, that she has spent time thinking about this moment. As a reminder, Olive lays in her son’s bed and thinks, “She felt fear, sitting out there on her folding chair. Fear that her heart would squeeze shut again, would stop, the way it did once before, a fist punched through her back. And she felt it, too, at the way the bride was smiling up at Christopher, as though she actually knew him” (Strout 67). Here, Olive is thinking about her new daughter-in-law, but she does not have ‘an impulse toward forgiveness’ or acceptance (since Suzanne had not wronged Olive in any overt way then). As Scofield suggests, however, this time Olive has spent thinking, reflecting, has mired her hopeless anguish. Olive is working herself up, instead of calming herself down. We literally see her creating distress for herself by assuming and

Think back to Pharmacy’s ending yet again. Henry interrogates himself, “How could he ever tell her— he could not— that all these years of feeling guilty about Denise have carried with them the kernel of still having her?” (Strout 29) . Even though Henry says he could not tell her, he 's still asking himself the question, which makes readers wonder what he will do. And what seems most essential from Scofield’s argument: this interrogating creates tension. It 's also placed in between action. But this works. It 's not reflecting, it 's interrogating. We wonder and wonder until there is action again (dialogue between Henry and Olive) and we see that Henry will not change in the way some readers may hope. As frustrating as this may be, consider what Scofield has claimed. This sort of interiority is what helps us know a character best. It 's what creates a dynamic character, too. What would the experience be like for readers if we didn 't have this access? What kind of a man would Henry seem? We can find out easily. Look at the ending passage and omit all indirect interior monologue (or maybe just try the interrogation interiority). Now he seems to be the kind of man Olive sees: static, simple, a man who is not