Answer:If the story were told from John's perspective, it would be a much more detached view of the narrator's descent into madness. Although the readers do not know what John thinks, it is clear that he believes that the medical treatment is correct. Not only would his perspective add another dimension to the woman's madness, but it would make him a more sympathetic character and perhaps even make their love story more tragic.
Who does Gilman ultimately blame for the narrator's descent into madness? Why?
In some ways, Gilman can seem to blame both John and S. Weir Mitchell for the narrator's ultimate insanity. Although they both mean well, their decision to promote the "rest cure" treatment is certainly the catalyst for the narrator's mental break. However, at the same time, Gilman could blame the society of the time, a society that expected women to be perfect wives and mothers and nothing else.
What is the significance of the first-person perspective of the narrative?
The first-person perspective of the narrative is very important because it allows the reader to understand and experience the narrator's descent into madness on a personal level. Instead of discovering the narrator's insanity from the detached perspective of a third-person narrator, the reader is present in the narrator's head at every stage of her insanity. As a result, the story is much more powerful and ultimately more disconcerting.
Explanation:
King Arthur is the king while Don Quixote OR Sundiata is NOT a king. What they both share in common is that they are both a legend and both go down in History (like Rudolph).
The verb phrase, "have become", is functioning as an action verb.
