Set in a romantic, quasi-mystical South American town, Love in the Time of Cholera is about the dramatic love triangle involving Florentino Ariza, Fermina Daza, and Dr. Juvenal Urbina. Throughout the novel, however, the reader is left wondering as to which one is the central love affair, the relationship that is supposed to be highlighted by the other. Is it the disturbing and unexpected love between Florentino and Fermina, or the socially-correct courtship and eventual long-lasting marriage of Dr. Urbina and Fermina? I will attempt to answer this question by dissecting the two relationships and therefore seeing which couple Marquez wants us to side with.
Florentino Ariza is an anomaly, an apparently unattractive man who attracts many women; a normally reserved, chaste person who falls passionately in love with Fermina with only a single glance: “… and that casual glance was the beginning of a cataclysm of love that still had not ended half a century later”(55). At first, this lead me to believe that it was merely a fleeting obsession, the melodramatic well-I-can’t-have-her-might-as-well-stalk-her reaction typical of soap operas and television movies. However, as time passes (and Florentino writes a 60-page love letter), it appears more and more likely that Florentino may actually be in love. Even stranger still, Fermina Daza is returning these emotions. At first glance, it appears to the reader that Fermina merely returns Florentino’s affections out of a mixture of sympathy and childish innocence. However, we can see that her affections do not wane over the three years she is away, despite the fact that her returns seems to have disillusioned her. Fifty-one years, nine months, and four days afterwards, it is painfully obvious that she still has feelings for Florentino: “while she slept, sobbing, she had thought more about Florentino Ariza than about her dead husband”(51).
The relationship between Dr. Urbina and Fermina comes as a surprise, mostly because it begins in a “lull” between Florentino and Fermina. After the passionate, immature love of Florentino, the abrupt, socially-correct courtship of Fermina by Dr. Urbino stuns the reader. Although both men are similar in their fervent desire for Fermina, Urbino’s money and eminent position seems to win Fermina over. At the beginning of the novel, however, it appears as if the long years have not withered their love, despite the fact that their relationship has become almost that of a mother and son: “After bathing him, Fermina Daza helped him to dress: she sprinkled talcum powder between his legs, she smoother cocoa butter on his rashed, she helped him put on his undershorts”(31). After falling out of the tree, his last words to her dispel all doubt that he has loved her for these many years: “Only God knows how much I loved you” (43). However, as previously noted, Fermina’s thoughts turn to Florentino after he returns to her and declares his love. Love in the Time of Cholera can be seen in two different lights: the first, a tale of a young, passionate love interrupted during a moment of confusion by a charming, sophisticated man; the desolate Florentino then must suffer for fifty-one long years before being reunited with his long lost love. The second, that Florentino developed an obscure, unfounded love for Fermina akin to stalking that was only returned due to childish innocence and stupidity. The rich, intelligent Dr. Urbino saves her from an unhappy, unhealthy relationship, and the true sadness of the book is found in the first several chapters, when he suddenly dies. The widowed Fermina is now prey, in her weakened state, to the advances of her former stalker. In my opinion, the novel tells the tale of the former option, about a young love broken by a richer, more sophisticated suitor. Florentino’s love during the time of cholera withstands the tests of time and heartbreak, and stands as a testament to the power true love has over one’s soul. (660)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Character Analysis: Father
Although much attention has been given to Mrs. Compson— or as she would prefer, Mrs. Bascombe— I find one of the most intriguing characters in Faulkner’s novel to be Father (Mr. Compson). He carries the burden of an aristocratic lineage, something that his wife is all too happy to harp to him about incessantly. While we see the actual downfall of the family through the eyes of its younger members, Faulkner never clearly shows the impact it has on Father, despite the fact that he is the patriarch and oldest member. A fatalist by nature, Father remarks that man’s every breath is a “fresh cast with dice already loaded against him” (p. 177). He is also a Southern gentleman whose “honorable” beliefs rub off on young, impressionable Quentin; throughout the tale, his upper-class status appears to be more of a curse than a blessing. In the novel, he most closely identifies with Quentin, his favorite son and potential Harvard undergraduate. The reader can see that this relationship is an integral part of the storyline; his closeness with Quentin leads to extreme depression and an early grave after Quentin’s death, and it created a distant relationship between him and Jason. In my opinion, Father’s treatment of his sons leads to the horrible events that result in the downfall of the family and is therefore one of the key characters of the story.
When troubled Quentin goes to his father for advice about Caddy between pages 176 and 178, he is seeking guidance that, in all honesty, could probably never be found. However, his father’s use of the word “temporary” to describe the love Quentin feels for his sister upsets Quentin to no end. Quentin identifies himself through this love, and to hear his father talk of it as “temporary” crumbles whatever self-respect or identity that Quentin had at all. Furthermore, Father’s lack of caring towards Caddy’s “situation” completely contradicts the Southern gentleman ideals that Quentin holds so dear to his heart, ideals that his father brought him up with. As if to further underline the importance of this conversation to Quentin, it is this painful conversation that he is thinking about before he goes to commit suicide. The repudiation of both Quentin’s personal identity and his beliefs at the same time leads to Quentin believing that he has nothing left to live for.
Perhaps most representative of Jason’s relationship with Father is the scene in which Father has Caddy, Benjy, and Quentin on his lap, while Mother has Jason on her’s. Mother insists that Jason is truly a Bascombe: “thank God you are not a Compson except in name” (196). Throughout the novel, she insists that the only reason Jason is normal is because he does not have to deal with the burden of “blue” blood. Unfortunately, the reader can see that Jason is quite a disturbed individual; he lies to his mother, steals from his sister, and intimidates his niece, all while self-righteously complaining. It is apparent that going from the lack of attention he received during his childhood to the pinpoint-intense attention he is receiving now has changed him for the worse.
Father drinks himself to death after Quentin’s suicide; he cannot help but blame himself for the permanent solution to the “temporary” problem. His lack of desire to keep on living further highlights the low value he places on his other son, Jason. While outwardly contemptuous, it is clear that Jason longs for the attention he never received from his father; he must pay a prostitute in order to get it. Thus, it is Father who defines the outcome of the family; after favoring Quentin his entire life and then losing him through a lack of understanding, Father finds that he has nothing left to live for. The Compson family is sucked into the vacuum his death creates; without him, the Compsons have becomes the Bascombes. (660)
When troubled Quentin goes to his father for advice about Caddy between pages 176 and 178, he is seeking guidance that, in all honesty, could probably never be found. However, his father’s use of the word “temporary” to describe the love Quentin feels for his sister upsets Quentin to no end. Quentin identifies himself through this love, and to hear his father talk of it as “temporary” crumbles whatever self-respect or identity that Quentin had at all. Furthermore, Father’s lack of caring towards Caddy’s “situation” completely contradicts the Southern gentleman ideals that Quentin holds so dear to his heart, ideals that his father brought him up with. As if to further underline the importance of this conversation to Quentin, it is this painful conversation that he is thinking about before he goes to commit suicide. The repudiation of both Quentin’s personal identity and his beliefs at the same time leads to Quentin believing that he has nothing left to live for.
Perhaps most representative of Jason’s relationship with Father is the scene in which Father has Caddy, Benjy, and Quentin on his lap, while Mother has Jason on her’s. Mother insists that Jason is truly a Bascombe: “thank God you are not a Compson except in name” (196). Throughout the novel, she insists that the only reason Jason is normal is because he does not have to deal with the burden of “blue” blood. Unfortunately, the reader can see that Jason is quite a disturbed individual; he lies to his mother, steals from his sister, and intimidates his niece, all while self-righteously complaining. It is apparent that going from the lack of attention he received during his childhood to the pinpoint-intense attention he is receiving now has changed him for the worse.
Father drinks himself to death after Quentin’s suicide; he cannot help but blame himself for the permanent solution to the “temporary” problem. His lack of desire to keep on living further highlights the low value he places on his other son, Jason. While outwardly contemptuous, it is clear that Jason longs for the attention he never received from his father; he must pay a prostitute in order to get it. Thus, it is Father who defines the outcome of the family; after favoring Quentin his entire life and then losing him through a lack of understanding, Father finds that he has nothing left to live for. The Compson family is sucked into the vacuum his death creates; without him, the Compsons have becomes the Bascombes. (660)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Frustnarration (These Titles are Getting Punderful)
There’s no doubt about it— The Sound and the Fury, by William Faulkner, is a confusing book. Plot twists, unreliable narrators, and grammatical mistakes abound, and the story is not placed in chronological order. It’s almost as if Faulkner was trying to make his novel famous by making it almost impossible to read and fully understand— if no one could read or comprehend it, no one could criticize it, either. Of course that’s not true; however, most readers would agree that it probably just seemed like a good idea at the time. In my opinion, this bizarre and often perplexing style of narration forces the reader to view the events through the eyes of the characters in the story, taking a form of realism to a whole new level.
Benjy’s character is obviously the most pitiable. In the novel, we can see his innermost thoughts and, simple though they may be, can see the both the underlying pain and the love he receives from his sister Caddy. Benjy’s disability also prevents him from thinking certain things; for instance, we only learn of his actions via other’s reactions, he does not punctuate any part of his memory, and inexplicable occurrences (such as the drinking of “sarsaparilla”) can only be derived using context clues and common sense. For instance, we only know when Benjy speaks because others react, like when Luster says: “Shut up that moaning. I cant make them come if they aint coming, can I. If you don’t hush up, mammy aint going to have no birthday cake for you” (4). In fact, the action during the “Benjy portion” of the novel centers around the dialogue surrounding him rather than his own actions. Through a muddled and bewildered viewpoint, the audience understands the toll that the Compson family’s actions have on Benjy. Because of his disability, we are the only ones who can.
Through Quentin’s mind, the reader is finally offered a fully-developed brain’s insights into events. Unfortunately, this brain also happens to be extremely depressed, severely tormented, and rather maniacal. From his obsession with clocks to his fervent (and rather disgusting) fascination with his sister, it is quite apparent that Quentin is not at all a well-balanced young man. Through such a disturbed mind, it becomes shockingly clear that the downfall of this once-prestigious family is having disastrous effects on its members. Quentin’s most shocking trait is obviously his lustful infatuation with his sister; this desire sharply contrasts with the previous section’s demonstration of Benjy’s utter love and dependence.
Using these two characters, Faulkner demonstrates a plethora of emotions. Although the narration style may be frustrating in the extreme, at the end of the day, it serves to cast Caddy as the main impetus for the Compson family’s downfall. As Quentin talks about Death he highlights the damage his sister has caused: “And the good Saint Francis that said Little Sister Death, that never had a sister”(76). Highlighting another type of damage is the fact that Benjy now pines every day at the gate, waiting for his sister to return. She won’t. (544)
Benjy’s character is obviously the most pitiable. In the novel, we can see his innermost thoughts and, simple though they may be, can see the both the underlying pain and the love he receives from his sister Caddy. Benjy’s disability also prevents him from thinking certain things; for instance, we only learn of his actions via other’s reactions, he does not punctuate any part of his memory, and inexplicable occurrences (such as the drinking of “sarsaparilla”) can only be derived using context clues and common sense. For instance, we only know when Benjy speaks because others react, like when Luster says: “Shut up that moaning. I cant make them come if they aint coming, can I. If you don’t hush up, mammy aint going to have no birthday cake for you” (4). In fact, the action during the “Benjy portion” of the novel centers around the dialogue surrounding him rather than his own actions. Through a muddled and bewildered viewpoint, the audience understands the toll that the Compson family’s actions have on Benjy. Because of his disability, we are the only ones who can.
Through Quentin’s mind, the reader is finally offered a fully-developed brain’s insights into events. Unfortunately, this brain also happens to be extremely depressed, severely tormented, and rather maniacal. From his obsession with clocks to his fervent (and rather disgusting) fascination with his sister, it is quite apparent that Quentin is not at all a well-balanced young man. Through such a disturbed mind, it becomes shockingly clear that the downfall of this once-prestigious family is having disastrous effects on its members. Quentin’s most shocking trait is obviously his lustful infatuation with his sister; this desire sharply contrasts with the previous section’s demonstration of Benjy’s utter love and dependence.
Using these two characters, Faulkner demonstrates a plethora of emotions. Although the narration style may be frustrating in the extreme, at the end of the day, it serves to cast Caddy as the main impetus for the Compson family’s downfall. As Quentin talks about Death he highlights the damage his sister has caused: “And the good Saint Francis that said Little Sister Death, that never had a sister”(76). Highlighting another type of damage is the fact that Benjy now pines every day at the gate, waiting for his sister to return. She won’t. (544)
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Things They Hid...
In “The Things They Carried”, Tim O’Brien shares his platoon’s experiences during the Vietnam War. Narrating in third person, he describes what the men of his platoon— especially Jimmy Cross, the protagonist—are thinking and offers explanations for their sometimes inexplicable actions. As the men encounter hardships, fear, and death, they become hardened; they carry human thumbs and trying to disguise their pain behind a façade of bravado and curses. As a grunt, or ground infantry soldier, O’Brien experienced the Vietnam War firsthand; in this short story, he attempts to convey what it really felt like to be a young, frightened soldier far away from home.
Perhaps one of O’Brien’s most useful tools in emphasizing the plight of these men is his frequent use of the phrase “they carried” to signify both the literal and figurative burdens that they must bear. For example, they all hold standard equipment such as “P-38 can openers, pocket knives, heat tabs, wristwatches, dog tags, mosquito repellent, chewing gum, candy, cigarettes, salt tablets, packets of Kool-Aid, lighters, matches… and two or three canteens of water”(¶ 2). Each man, however, carries something unique that says something about himself: Ted Lavender carries illegal drugs, Rat Kiley carries comic books, Dave Jensen carries various hygienic items such as toothpaste and dental floss, and Jimmy Cross carries letters and photos from a girl named Martha. These simple items represent more than just casual idiosyncrasies; they offer each man a chance to briefly escape the awful reality that he lives in. Jimmy Cross spends much more time thinking about New Jersey than he does thinking about where he actually is. After the death of Ted Lavender, he realizes that as the lieutenant, he cannot afford to ignore the reality of this war. The lives of his men depend on him being there both physically and mentally; as a result of this revelation, he burns Martha’s picture and letters.
The other loads that the men carry are intangible, and O’Brien weaves these emotional weights in with the material ones. Jimmy Cross carries “a compass, maps, code books, binoculars… a strobe light and the responsibility for the lives of his men” (7). Kiowa carries “an illustrated New Testament… his grandmother’s distrust of the white man, [and] his grandfather’s old hunting hatchet” (2). Among other things, they carry “ghosts” (17), “the land” and “the sky” (39), “shameful memories” and “the soldier’s greatest fear, the fear of blushing” (77). The death of Ted Lavender is just one more immaterial load on their backs, demonstrated by Jimmy Cross when he repents his lack of attention: “as a consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war” (42).
The platoon’s members act almost inhuman in their attempts to hide their weaknesses. Their disregard for human life appears in many incidents, most apparently in Mitchell Sanders’ removal of the dead boy’s thumb and its “moral” and their reactions following the death of Ted Lavender. After he is shot and killed, they “sat smoking the dead man’s dope until the chopper came” (11), and refer to him as being “zapped while zipping”(46). O’Brien aptly places the real sentiment behind such bravado when he says that they commit and say such atrocities “as if to encyst and destroy the reality of death itself” (68). They know that they are only human, and they carry “the common secret of cowardice barely restrained, the instinct to run or freeze or hide, and in many respects this was the heaviest burden of all” (77). They realize that at any moment, they could be the next Ted Lavender, lying on the ground dead with broken teeth and a missing cheekbone.
The experiences of Jimmy Cross and his platoon underline the youth and innocence of the soldiers of the Vietnam War. “The Things They Carried” digs beneath the superficial surface of bravery and cruelty and reveals a generation that was too young and inexperienced to come to terms with the killing of others or the sudden, violent deaths of their friends. Although young, each man carries a weapon and the knowledge of the awful potential within it: “They carried all they could bear, and then some, including a silent awe for the terrible power of the things they carried” (12). (724)
Questions:
1) Do you blame Jimmy Cross for Ted Lavender's death? Does Tim O'Brien?
2)What is the significance of the dead VC boy and the "moral"?
3)What is the purpose of the overly-descriptive language(Exact numbers, etc.)?
4)Do you sympathize with the men for trying to dehumanize the experience?
Perhaps one of O’Brien’s most useful tools in emphasizing the plight of these men is his frequent use of the phrase “they carried” to signify both the literal and figurative burdens that they must bear. For example, they all hold standard equipment such as “P-38 can openers, pocket knives, heat tabs, wristwatches, dog tags, mosquito repellent, chewing gum, candy, cigarettes, salt tablets, packets of Kool-Aid, lighters, matches… and two or three canteens of water”(¶ 2). Each man, however, carries something unique that says something about himself: Ted Lavender carries illegal drugs, Rat Kiley carries comic books, Dave Jensen carries various hygienic items such as toothpaste and dental floss, and Jimmy Cross carries letters and photos from a girl named Martha. These simple items represent more than just casual idiosyncrasies; they offer each man a chance to briefly escape the awful reality that he lives in. Jimmy Cross spends much more time thinking about New Jersey than he does thinking about where he actually is. After the death of Ted Lavender, he realizes that as the lieutenant, he cannot afford to ignore the reality of this war. The lives of his men depend on him being there both physically and mentally; as a result of this revelation, he burns Martha’s picture and letters.
The other loads that the men carry are intangible, and O’Brien weaves these emotional weights in with the material ones. Jimmy Cross carries “a compass, maps, code books, binoculars… a strobe light and the responsibility for the lives of his men” (7). Kiowa carries “an illustrated New Testament… his grandmother’s distrust of the white man, [and] his grandfather’s old hunting hatchet” (2). Among other things, they carry “ghosts” (17), “the land” and “the sky” (39), “shameful memories” and “the soldier’s greatest fear, the fear of blushing” (77). The death of Ted Lavender is just one more immaterial load on their backs, demonstrated by Jimmy Cross when he repents his lack of attention: “as a consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war” (42).
The platoon’s members act almost inhuman in their attempts to hide their weaknesses. Their disregard for human life appears in many incidents, most apparently in Mitchell Sanders’ removal of the dead boy’s thumb and its “moral” and their reactions following the death of Ted Lavender. After he is shot and killed, they “sat smoking the dead man’s dope until the chopper came” (11), and refer to him as being “zapped while zipping”(46). O’Brien aptly places the real sentiment behind such bravado when he says that they commit and say such atrocities “as if to encyst and destroy the reality of death itself” (68). They know that they are only human, and they carry “the common secret of cowardice barely restrained, the instinct to run or freeze or hide, and in many respects this was the heaviest burden of all” (77). They realize that at any moment, they could be the next Ted Lavender, lying on the ground dead with broken teeth and a missing cheekbone.
The experiences of Jimmy Cross and his platoon underline the youth and innocence of the soldiers of the Vietnam War. “The Things They Carried” digs beneath the superficial surface of bravery and cruelty and reveals a generation that was too young and inexperienced to come to terms with the killing of others or the sudden, violent deaths of their friends. Although young, each man carries a weapon and the knowledge of the awful potential within it: “They carried all they could bear, and then some, including a silent awe for the terrible power of the things they carried” (12). (724)
Questions:
1) Do you blame Jimmy Cross for Ted Lavender's death? Does Tim O'Brien?
2)What is the significance of the dead VC boy and the "moral"?
3)What is the purpose of the overly-descriptive language(Exact numbers, etc.)?
4)Do you sympathize with the men for trying to dehumanize the experience?
Friday, September 28, 2007
Equality… Doesn’t That Mean the Same Thing for Everyone?
Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., is a short story about a future society whose people’s natural abilities and advantages are suppressed in order to eliminate the “menace” of competition. In the story, a couple’s extremely talented son rebels against the government by refusing to suppress his abilities and is subsequently killed; his parents watch the event unfold on television and immediately forget what they have just seen. In contrast, Battle Royal, by Ralph Ellison, is a short story set in the mid 20th century in the South amidst awful racial prejudice. Narrated by an African-American, the story details a humiliating boxing match that ten black men—including the narrator— are forced to fight in front of a group of white men. Afterwards, in a cruel juxtaposition, the narrator must cruelly give his well-prepared speech about continuing the peaceful unifying strategies of Booker T. Washington. In my opinion these two stories—despite having vast discrepancies in plot and setting— put forward two polar opinions on the same theme: equality.
In Harrison Bergeron, equality is presented towards the reader as an extreme; the government’s complete control over competition and natural ability makes no one very good at anything. For example, while Hazel (Harrison’s mother) has “a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts”(¶ 3) while George ( Harrison’s father), who is intelligent, is forced to wear a little radio in his ear to disrupt his thoughts every twenty seconds. Throughout the story, the narrator also inserts little comments about the society: “And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody… and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive” (41). Because Vonnegut also mentions the “warm, timeless melody”, the reader can see what Vonnegut is really trying to say what he thinks about such a society. Because of the time period of this piece, I’m led to believe that this statement about total equality goes further than simply a sardonic comment on the benefits of natural selection. Rather, it is also a pointed remark on the failures of the communist systems and their respective countries. Through a dark, foreboding mood and occasional sarcastic comments on the nature of such a society, Vonnegut uses reverse psychology to underline the important of both equality and competition in American society.
As opposed to Harrison Bergeron, Battle Royal looks at equality from the other side of the “equality spectrum”: those who have none at all. In the story, a young black man is excited to recite his well-rehearsed speech on the importance of humility in order to obtain respect from the white man. Before he gives it, however, he is forced to degrade himself—along with 9 other young black men— in a pseudo-gladiatorial contest for ten dollars. As he spits out his own blood, dazed and tired from the fight, he begins to recite his speech. When he uses the phrase “social equality”, however, the crowd reacts derisively: “ The laughter hung smokelike in the sudden stillness. I opened my eyes, puzzled. Sounds of displeasure filled the room…They shouted hostile phrases at me. But I did not understand” (83). As the audience stops laughing, the narrator corrects himself and states that he meant to say “social responsibility”. In response, a small man in the front row states: “Well, you had better speak more slowly so we can understand. We mean to do right by you, but you’ve got to know your place at all times” (91). By putting the narrator through such abhorrent situations such as the fight and the ridicule of his speech, Ellison portrays the awful racial inequality present at this time.
While Vonnegut mocks an overabundance of equality and Ellison honestly portrays racial inequalities, both make equally significant points about equality. One, that equality is relative and, although a blessing in many respects should be kept within man’s own limits; the other, that equality is not true for all groups of people in the United States. After reading them in conjunction, the disgusting lack of equality in one story highlights the overabundance of it in the other. (711)
In Harrison Bergeron, equality is presented towards the reader as an extreme; the government’s complete control over competition and natural ability makes no one very good at anything. For example, while Hazel (Harrison’s mother) has “a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts”(¶ 3) while George ( Harrison’s father), who is intelligent, is forced to wear a little radio in his ear to disrupt his thoughts every twenty seconds. Throughout the story, the narrator also inserts little comments about the society: “And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody… and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive” (41). Because Vonnegut also mentions the “warm, timeless melody”, the reader can see what Vonnegut is really trying to say what he thinks about such a society. Because of the time period of this piece, I’m led to believe that this statement about total equality goes further than simply a sardonic comment on the benefits of natural selection. Rather, it is also a pointed remark on the failures of the communist systems and their respective countries. Through a dark, foreboding mood and occasional sarcastic comments on the nature of such a society, Vonnegut uses reverse psychology to underline the important of both equality and competition in American society.
As opposed to Harrison Bergeron, Battle Royal looks at equality from the other side of the “equality spectrum”: those who have none at all. In the story, a young black man is excited to recite his well-rehearsed speech on the importance of humility in order to obtain respect from the white man. Before he gives it, however, he is forced to degrade himself—along with 9 other young black men— in a pseudo-gladiatorial contest for ten dollars. As he spits out his own blood, dazed and tired from the fight, he begins to recite his speech. When he uses the phrase “social equality”, however, the crowd reacts derisively: “ The laughter hung smokelike in the sudden stillness. I opened my eyes, puzzled. Sounds of displeasure filled the room…They shouted hostile phrases at me. But I did not understand” (83). As the audience stops laughing, the narrator corrects himself and states that he meant to say “social responsibility”. In response, a small man in the front row states: “Well, you had better speak more slowly so we can understand. We mean to do right by you, but you’ve got to know your place at all times” (91). By putting the narrator through such abhorrent situations such as the fight and the ridicule of his speech, Ellison portrays the awful racial inequality present at this time.
While Vonnegut mocks an overabundance of equality and Ellison honestly portrays racial inequalities, both make equally significant points about equality. One, that equality is relative and, although a blessing in many respects should be kept within man’s own limits; the other, that equality is not true for all groups of people in the United States. After reading them in conjunction, the disgusting lack of equality in one story highlights the overabundance of it in the other. (711)
Friday, September 21, 2007
The Misfit
Character Analysis: The Misfit
“A Good Man is Hard to Find”, by Flannery O’Connor, is a shocking story about the sudden death of a peaceful family on vacation. In the story, the grandmother convinces the rest of the family (which is made up of her son, daughter-in-law, and three children) to visit an old plantation she recalled from her childhood. However, after the family crashes its car, it encounters a character known as the Misfit, the only character in the story with any real depth.
When we first meet the Misfit, he exudes intelligence and the sagacity that comes with age: “He was an older man… His hair was just beginning to gray and he wore silver-rimmed spectacles that gave him a scholarly look.”(¶73) However, we quickly realize who he really is as the grandmother identifies him as The Misfit, a criminal mentioned earlier in the story as having escaped. An awful aspect of the story’s most important dialogue is the fact that it is all delivered while the grandmother’s family is being killed in the forest while she talks with The Misfit. The reader must keep that in mind while The Misfit talks about his former innocence: “I never was a bad boy that I remember of… but somewheres [sic] along the line I done something wrong and got sent to the penitentiary. I was buried alive.”(111) While the reader wants to believe that he is a good man—not nearly as much as the grandmother does—we cannot help but feel disgusted by his actions, no matter his past troubles in life. As family member after family member perishes, only the Misfit and the grandmother are left talking. As she talks with him, his composure begins to crack: he admits that if he had had more faith in Jesus, “I wouldn’t be like I am now.”(137) As his voice begins to tremble and break down, however, the grandmother crosses the line— she reaches over and touches him. Instinctively he shoots her three times in the chest, eliminating any idea the reader might have had that this story had a happy ending.
The entire plot is based off of the following question: “Is The Misfit a good man?” The reader spends the entire story believing that this tense dialogue will not be wasted and that in the end The Misfit will let the grandmother live. As soon as he kills her, the story loses its purpose: the question has been answered. Even though The Misfit may be the deepest-explored character of the story, he is most definitely not a good man.(432)
“A Good Man is Hard to Find”, by Flannery O’Connor, is a shocking story about the sudden death of a peaceful family on vacation. In the story, the grandmother convinces the rest of the family (which is made up of her son, daughter-in-law, and three children) to visit an old plantation she recalled from her childhood. However, after the family crashes its car, it encounters a character known as the Misfit, the only character in the story with any real depth.
When we first meet the Misfit, he exudes intelligence and the sagacity that comes with age: “He was an older man… His hair was just beginning to gray and he wore silver-rimmed spectacles that gave him a scholarly look.”(¶73) However, we quickly realize who he really is as the grandmother identifies him as The Misfit, a criminal mentioned earlier in the story as having escaped. An awful aspect of the story’s most important dialogue is the fact that it is all delivered while the grandmother’s family is being killed in the forest while she talks with The Misfit. The reader must keep that in mind while The Misfit talks about his former innocence: “I never was a bad boy that I remember of… but somewheres [sic] along the line I done something wrong and got sent to the penitentiary. I was buried alive.”(111) While the reader wants to believe that he is a good man—not nearly as much as the grandmother does—we cannot help but feel disgusted by his actions, no matter his past troubles in life. As family member after family member perishes, only the Misfit and the grandmother are left talking. As she talks with him, his composure begins to crack: he admits that if he had had more faith in Jesus, “I wouldn’t be like I am now.”(137) As his voice begins to tremble and break down, however, the grandmother crosses the line— she reaches over and touches him. Instinctively he shoots her three times in the chest, eliminating any idea the reader might have had that this story had a happy ending.
The entire plot is based off of the following question: “Is The Misfit a good man?” The reader spends the entire story believing that this tense dialogue will not be wasted and that in the end The Misfit will let the grandmother live. As soon as he kills her, the story loses its purpose: the question has been answered. Even though The Misfit may be the deepest-explored character of the story, he is most definitely not a good man.(432)
Symbols in "Revelation"
“Revelation”, by Flannery O’Connor, tells the story of a woman’s enlightening experience in a doctor’s waiting room. At first glance, it’s a rather awkwardly-constructed story, with almost no rising action but a climax that comes from out of the blue. The characters—
especially the protagonist, Mrs. Turpin—are not very likeable, and the writing is far from an elevated style. It is only when the reader steps back and looks at the symbolism in “Revelation” that one can appreciate its importance.
Even the title of the short story is evocative, bringing to mind the biblical Book of Revelations, which addresses Judgement Day and the fate of sinners. In my opinion, the waiting room symbolizes Purgatory, where souls wait before entering Heaven. In O’Connor’s words, the waiting room (Purgatory) “was very small, was almost full when the Turpins entered… [Mrs. Turpin was] a living demonstration that the room was inadequate and ridiculous” (¶ 1). O’Connor is decrying the lack of space available for those who deserve to enter Heaven. As for those waiting in the room, there is nothing saintly about any of them. The second most important character—after Mrs. Turpin—is Mary Grace, a “fat girl of eighteen or nineteen… [and a face that] was blue with acne” (19). Her name represents her most important role in the story: the “saving grace” of Mrs. Turpin. When Mary Grace throws the book entitled (ironically) Human Development at Mrs. Turpin, Mrs. Turpin waits for an explanation “holding her breath, waiting, as for a revelation”(112). To this expectant query, Mary mutters “Go back to hell where you came from, you old wart hog”(113). To the reader, this is the moment where Mary’s purpose is revealed: to show Mrs. Turpin that she does not belong in the same room as Mary (Purgatory) because of her wicked thoughts and sayings. To Mrs. Turpin, this is the moment that becomes her “revelation”: she begins to question if she is in fact a good person— something she had never really asked herself before— and whether or not she belongs in heaven.
The question of Mrs. Turpin’s fate is never fully answered in the novel. For example, her perceived goodness by her slaves stands in marked contrast to her own thoughts: “[Mrs. Turpin’s slave] said it as if they all knew Mrs. Turpin was protected in some special way by Divine Providence” (148). As she begins to question her soul’s fate aloud at the end of the story, the reader is left hanging as to whether or not Mrs. Turpin changes her ways, making it forever unknown whether or not the “revelation” worked.(440)
especially the protagonist, Mrs. Turpin—are not very likeable, and the writing is far from an elevated style. It is only when the reader steps back and looks at the symbolism in “Revelation” that one can appreciate its importance.
Even the title of the short story is evocative, bringing to mind the biblical Book of Revelations, which addresses Judgement Day and the fate of sinners. In my opinion, the waiting room symbolizes Purgatory, where souls wait before entering Heaven. In O’Connor’s words, the waiting room (Purgatory) “was very small, was almost full when the Turpins entered… [Mrs. Turpin was] a living demonstration that the room was inadequate and ridiculous” (¶ 1). O’Connor is decrying the lack of space available for those who deserve to enter Heaven. As for those waiting in the room, there is nothing saintly about any of them. The second most important character—after Mrs. Turpin—is Mary Grace, a “fat girl of eighteen or nineteen… [and a face that] was blue with acne” (19). Her name represents her most important role in the story: the “saving grace” of Mrs. Turpin. When Mary Grace throws the book entitled (ironically) Human Development at Mrs. Turpin, Mrs. Turpin waits for an explanation “holding her breath, waiting, as for a revelation”(112). To this expectant query, Mary mutters “Go back to hell where you came from, you old wart hog”(113). To the reader, this is the moment where Mary’s purpose is revealed: to show Mrs. Turpin that she does not belong in the same room as Mary (Purgatory) because of her wicked thoughts and sayings. To Mrs. Turpin, this is the moment that becomes her “revelation”: she begins to question if she is in fact a good person— something she had never really asked herself before— and whether or not she belongs in heaven.
The question of Mrs. Turpin’s fate is never fully answered in the novel. For example, her perceived goodness by her slaves stands in marked contrast to her own thoughts: “[Mrs. Turpin’s slave] said it as if they all knew Mrs. Turpin was protected in some special way by Divine Providence” (148). As she begins to question her soul’s fate aloud at the end of the story, the reader is left hanging as to whether or not Mrs. Turpin changes her ways, making it forever unknown whether or not the “revelation” worked.(440)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
