In the short stories “Defender of the Faith” and “Hills Like White Elephants”, two very different points of view are used. In “Defender of the Faith”, the first person point of view is used. “Hills Like White Elephants” uses the objective point of view. The two different points of view give each story their own individual characteristics. One point of view is not necessarily better than the other. The two are equally effective because of how the author uses it in their respective story. Philip Roth portrays his short story, “Defender of the Faith”, through the eyes of Sergeant Nathan Marx. The story tells of the encounters between the Sergeant and Private Sheldon Grossbart, who is in basic training in basic training. With the use of the first person, all the reader can see is what Marx sees. Over the course of the story it is learned that Grossbart is seemingly scheming behind the Sergeant’s back. The reader gains this information gradually because this is how the Sergeant also learns. It is never known exactly what Grossbart is thinking or even what he does in the privacy of the barracks. The use of this point of view makes the story what it is. The view keeps a sort of suspense present in the story. Confusion is not an issue with the use of this point of view. The first person view obviously leaves out parts of the story but in no way makes for a confusing plot. Lack of details as to what Grossbart is planning keeps the story alive and exciting. If an omniscient or objective view were used for this story it would seem unexciting and almost pointless. On the 2other hand, if the first person were used from the view of Grossbart the story would have a different meaning and most likely make the Sergeant look like a bad person. First person is clearly the correct point of view for this story, and the author chose to use it through the Sergeant.Ernest Hem...
