Oxford Concise Dictionary Literary Terms by Chris Baldick

In "Oxford Concise Dictionary Literary Terms" by Chris Baldick, characterization is defined as the representation of persons in narrative and dramatic works which include direct and indirect methods in inviting the readers to infer qualities from characters' actions, speech, or appearance. However, modals in literature context serve as an eye opener to the personality and traits of the characters in short stories. It enables the readers to learn of the characters' abilities, capabilities, prohibitions, obligations and so forth. The appearance of modals in literary texts serves its own specific purposes in accordance to the author's wish. In David Leavitt's "Territory" which describes the relationship between a mother (Mrs. Campbell) and her son (Neil) who is a homosexual, gives me an interest to explore and find out more about the characters. Through the use of modals found in the extract, it enables me to go in depth and examine the characterization in the story.

Firstly, in paragraph 2, line 1 of the extract, the modal "must" is used by David Leavitt to show one of Neil's traits indirectly - "The last item puzzles him: Pedro. Pedro must be the gardener." Here, as Neil read through his mother's daily list found on the kitchen table, he came across the name "Pedro" which he was unfamiliar with. Eventually, he expressed an assumption which he believed was true. However, instead of using "could" to indicate possibility, the writer chose to use the modal "must" to reveal Neil's inner self which was lacking in confidence and even probably having a strong need of self assurance despite the fact that the modal is meant to express certainty. Thus, the readers are able to know more of Neil's character as the modal is used to create a reverse effect on the readers as an irony.

Secondly, in this extract, Neil the protagonist is presented by the writer as a son who was torn between his own desire to follow his heart or to live up to the society and his mother's expectations of him. He tried to vision himself as the son that his mother expects of him through the use of modal "could" - "He could make a list of his own selves: the child, the adolescent, the promiscuous faggot son, and finally the good son, settled, relatively successful." (Paragraph 2, line 3)By using the modal "could", it gives the readers a feeling that he is capable of doing what he was expected to and it only depends on whether he is willing or not. And again, readers can see Neil's strong need of self assurance. Leavitt's goal to vividly describe Neil's inner conflict and struggle was achieved through the use of "could".

Despite his vision of his own self as the promising son, Neil's final decision was eventually shown in the next sentence with the help of modals such as "wouldn't" and "will". The modal "wouldn't" in "But the divisions wouldn't work..." (Paragraph 2, line 5) suggests Neil's certainty that all he had envisioned earlier on was impossible to realize and achieve. In addition, a sense of helplessness was also delivered through the sentence, indicating his inability to act according to what was expected of him. Therefore, the modal "wouldn't" helps the readers to sympathize and go deeper into Neil's feelings as it also draws him closer to the readers at the same time. Later on, the appearance of modal "will" that is used repeatedly further confirmed and reinforced Neil's certainty of what his future holds for him - "...he is today and will always be the child being licked by the dog...he will still be everything he is ashamed of." Leavitt's use of "will" in such a way creates a strong impression on the readers, suggesting the strong certainty and determination of Neil in deciding what he wants for himself in his life.

As the story goes further on, Wayne was telling Mrs. Campbell about his family including his mother who once