Introduction to paper/first topic

While many symbols, signs, and patterns both connote and denote any number of things that may link this text to structurally similar bodies of work, those that will be most deeply discussed in this criticism are those that appear in reference to four elements; the style of writing with which Tom Robbins delivers the story, the Camel Pack, the relationship of Leigh-Cheri and Wrangle, and Bernard Mickey Wrangle as an outlaw (1). Literal definition, the mythoi of Northrop Frye, and the original foundations of structuralism laid by Peirce and Saussure for analyzing the sign system will be employed to establish Still Life with Woodpecker as a many faceted work which relates to a few specific writing styles and plot genres, among other things. These elements are meant to characterize the work as fitting into the “modern fiction” genre of the authors to be discussed, the age-old structure of fairy tale romance, and the archetypal (2) nature of characters and objects which are present in said bodies of work. As well, the presence of food and its symbolism will be discussed to further demonstrate the ways in which Still Life might be called similar to other bodies of work. It should be noted that this work was intended to hold very little, if any symbolism, and rather to detail objects for the sake of the object. In light of this, any interpretations I draw are from my own feelings as to what that object or occurrence symbolizes, and from those critics who have drawn parallels which are relevant to this criticism, which I will interpret as I see fit (3).
To begin, the delivery of this work will be our focus. Tom Robbins displays writing style in Still Life characterized by an ever-present optimism for the future of his characters voiced by the storyteller, character professions of near faultless optimism about their own futures, and a somewhat magical reality which, frankly, has every power to give all but the least involved characters near faultless optimism (4). This style could be called “new,” as such, but if more deeply considered is found to be a curious amalgam of patterns, some of which mimic bodies of work to which we might call this one similar, including the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, and Roald Dahl (5).

1 I didn't think it would end well, but I was aiming for viable points
2 Yes, Diana, it's a real word :) Though I have no idea how it gained that title
3 Translation? No amount of symoblism I'm about to cover was intended, me and those other guys are literally making all of it up. We ask your forgiveness. Maybe they don't, they're published and theoretically respected after all. I'm just a college student aiming for a pleasant grade.
4 Because they have nothing better to believe in
5 Three of the craziest people I could think of, and completely fitting