Question

when a characters dialogue consistently contradicts their actions throughout a story, and this pattern is intentional, what should readers conclude about the authors characterization strategy?
○ the author made an error in character consistency
○ the character is meant to represent the theme of self - deception or hypocrisy
○ the dialogue should be ignored in favor of the actions
○ the character will likely resolve this contradiction by the storys end

Explanation:

• Option 1: The problem states the pattern is intentional, so it's not an error. Eliminate this.
• Option 2: A character whose dialogue contradicts actions (intentionally) often represents self - deception (saying one thing, believing it but acting differently) or hypocrisy (saying one thing, acting against it). This fits a deliberate characterization strategy.
• Option 3: Both dialogue and actions are important in characterization; ignoring dialogue is incorrect. Eliminate this.
• Option 4: There's no indication the contradiction will be resolved; the focus is on the characterization strategy, not resolution. Eliminate this.

Answer:

B. The character is meant to represent the theme of self - deception or hypocrisy