Fiction Essays
Introduction to Literature Class
Professor Lay
Fall 2009
Saint Louis Christian College
1
Fiction Essays
2
Table of Contents
1
Everyday Use
Victoria Mallory
3
2
The Swimmer
Scott Worley
8
3
Bartleby, the Scrivener
Nathan Diveley
13
4
The Open Boat
Megan Sabourin
18
5
Bartleby, the Scrivener
Michael Womble
23
6
Everyday Use
Jessica Diveley
28
7
Separating
Laura Hocking
33
8
Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?
Jessica Wieneman
38
9
Omelas
Jimmy Woods
42
10
Gimpel the Fool
Jimi Raffety
47
11
Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?
Julie Outlaw
53
12
The Lady with the Pet Dog
Jonathan Banks
58
13
The Open Boat
Erin Klug
63
14
Gimpel the Fool
Clare Raney
68
15
Babylon Revisited
Chip Pagel
73
16
Swimmer
Christian Cowsert
78
17
Gimpel the Foll
Bethany Wilson
82
18
A Party Down at the Square
Jon Magnuson
87
19
Everyday Use
Ricky Graham
92
Fiction Essays
1
3
Everyday Use
Victoria Mallory
In my analysis of the story titled Everyday Use, I would like to show a very diverse view or
take on the story by focusing on the author‘s perception of values. This paper will also inform its
readers of the writer/author Alice Walker‘s lifestyle, childhood, career, and strong influences.
The Plot of Everyday Use started with a vivid and very descriptive depiction of a typical
black family. It tells the story of a presumably single mother with two very different daughters, in
character and/or personality. In this particular story Dee or her preferred name ―Wangero‖
characters portrays one who has no appreciation whatsoever of her beginnings. There is always
at least one child who instead of simply wanting more out of life and ceasing the great
opportunities life has to offer, seems to brag and boast and never are really content with gained
accomplishments. Dee‘s Character shows this by never wanting to be around or bring friends
home.
In the story Everyday Use, Walker eposes the complexities of the ordinary by presenting it
within a context of duplicity and change. According to The Oxford Companion to African American
Literature, within this context Walker peels back the hard cast cover of African and African
American women‘s lives to reveal the naked edge of truth and hope. She traced the absurd
actions of the southern black peasant women, such as Ms. Johnson, the guardian of southern
black culture in this particular story.
In my examination of Walker‘s short story Everyday Use, I noticed several profound things
in the beginning of the story. Walker starts by introducing the characters in a very descriptive
way. The very first line of the story is the forerunner of the entire story. It shows the characters
Maggie and her mother preparing the ―atmosphere‖ for a certain daughter and or sister. A
daughter who the story describes Maggie as saying that she has never had the knowledge of the
word ―no.‖ Maggie believes that her sister has ―held life in the palm of her hand.‖ It is very
interesting that the story does not show Maggie and the mother of both young ladies cleaning the
house, but the front yard which is described as being like an ―extended room‖ to the house. This
is interesting because it shows that the women are trying to ―fix‖ the very appearance of the
house where this certain daughter once resided, before prestige of course! Although there are
Fiction Essays
4
several thoughts and/or points I could expound on, I have chosen to focus on the metaphor of
the quilt and how it really applies to African American identity or specifically heritage and culture.
In early African American culture quilting was the ―thing‖ to do to be reminded of a
loved one, a past experience, a slave master, and etc. To learn the trade one was considered to be
extremely appreciative of their heritage and thus keeping their family line remembered and
thriving or alive. This was needed due to the lack of privileges‘ and resources. During slavery,
blacks were very frequently being separated from their families to be sold as servants into another
family‘s household. These experiences made quilting so memorable and monumental.
African American quilting has been dated as far back as the history of America. On the
plantation black slave women were needed for spinning, sewing, weaving and quilting. This is
presumably where the culture got its experience. This led to ―scrap‖ quilting. Scrap quilting is
when one cut out sections of anything that is valuable such as, shirts, scarves, dresses, curtains
etc. to create a memorial quilt. This whole idea is pretty neat because the pieces of material used
in the quilt, captures the idea of the person but the best part is the story telling. The elders would
tell each generation repeatedly about the life lived by this particular ancestor represented on the
cloth. They would also teach the younger generation how to make the quilts, so that the tradition
would never die. This is awesome because it paints pictures in each individual‘s mind of the
ancestor. Some would imagine their ancestor as heroic, some grateful, some humble, some
hateful or misused, but all shared one common thought which was appreciation of history and
just to have a ―bite-size‖ taste of where and whom they come from.
After dinner Dee (Wangero) went to the trunk at the foot of my bed and started rifling
through it. Maggie hung back in the kitchen over the dishpan. Out came Wangero with two
quilts. They had been pieced by Grandma Dee and then Big Dee and me had hung them on the
quilt frames on the front porch and quilted them. One was in the Lone Stat pattern. The other
was Walk Around the Mountain. In both of them were scraps of dresses Grandma Dee had worn
fifty and more years ago. Bits and pieces of Grandpa Jarrell's Paisley shirts. And one teeny faded
blue piece, about the size of a penny matchbox, that was from Great Grandpa Ezra's uniform
that he wore in the Civil War. (Walker, ―Everyday Use‖) This particular quote from the story
shows an example of scrap quilting and its significance on the black culture.
The main idea in Everyday Use emphasizes the divergence between views of heritage and
culture. The story displays two very different points of view on culture and heritage and how
Fiction Essays
5
they ―should‖ be reverenced. One of the view points is taking by both the mother and younger
daughter Maggie, which is practical and appreciative. The other view point in the story is taking
by the older daughter Dee, which is simple and flamboyant. Walker approaches this particular
story with the intent of presenting an interesting comparison of the heritage and culture
represented by the way the quilt is viewed especially among the African American.
Dee‘s character in the story shows one who views heritage and culture as one that should
be reserved or ―placed on a self.‖ She is very materialistic. Although I can understand her
intentions to keep things in grade ―A‖ shape, her heart is not to simply cherish the valuable
―hand-me-downs‖ or items, but to display them as trophies (which as all know will at some point
go to waste or ruin to never be remembered again.) In the story Dee says, ―Maggie can't
appreciate these quilts! She'd probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use.‖ This
particular quote was the highlight of the story. It was the very depiction of the conflict of views
taking by the characters pertaining to heritage.
The mother/narrator of the story and the younger daughter Maggie characters shows the
understanding of not simply cherishing the heritage and culture of their native people, but the
importance of carrying on the tradition to each following generation. This is especially in the
story to show the metaphor of the quilt.
There are several thoughts to ponder in this particular story. One of them is the fact that
one of the daughters (Dee) was educated and represented the ―sadity‖ black women of the day
whom would desire nicer things, but instead of just simply wanting to do better for themselves,
they would ―frown‖ upon those who were less educated (peasant) and those who simply enjoyed
the small things in life and who also grew content with there ―place‖ in life. As one continue to
read further into the story it apparent that Dee feels that her opinion of heritage and culture are
―correct,‖ but one would also see that unlike Dee Maggie, the younger sister is generally quite
throughout the story, has the ―hands on‖ experience and a burning reverence for her heritage.
Maybe she has gotten this passion from being less attractive than her older sister and therefore
not having the recourses or privileges afforded Dee, or maybe she grew this passion from living
under her mother which could have ultimately shaped her thought processes of heritage and
culture, but judging from this quote of Walker in the story, it is safe to say that Maggie‘s desire to
keep the tradition of quilting alive came from an earlier generation who could have possibly
shared the stories of their childhood and the symbolism of the quilts. ―I looked at her hard. She
Fiction Essays
6
had filled her bottom lip with checkerberry snuff and gave her face a kind of dopey, hangdog
look. It was Grandma Dee and Big Dee who taught her how to quilt herself. She stood there with
her scarred hands hidden in the folds of her skirt. She looked at her sister with something like
fear but she wasn't mad at her. This was Maggie's portion. This was the way she knew God to
work.‖
One of the sources I read talked about the different views the author had pertaining to
heritage and culture and how those views were seen in this particular story in the form of the
characters Dee and Maggie this source stated the following:
"Everyday Use" was published early in Alice Walker‘s writing career, appearing in her
collection In Love and Trouble: Stories of Black Women in 1973. The work was enthusiastically
reviewed upon publication, and "Everyday Use" has since been called by some critics the best of
Walker's short stories. In letting a rural black woman with little education tell a story that affirms
the value of her heritage, Walker articulates what has since become, as critic Barbara Christian
notes, two central themes in her writing: "the importance of the quilt in her work ... [and] the
creation of African American Southern women as subjects in their own right." When Mrs.
Johnson snatches her ancestors' quilts from her daughter Dee, who wants to hang them on a
wall, and gives them to Maggie, Walker illuminates her life-long celebration of rural Southern
black womanhood. The motif of quilting has since become central to Walker's concerns, because
it suggests the strength to be found in connecting with one's roots and one's past. As with many
other stories by Walker, "Everyday Use" is narrated by the unrefined voice of a rural black
woman, in the author's attempt to give a voice to a traditionally disenfranchised segment of the
population.
Alice Walker is a world renowned poet, short story writer, essayist, publisher, novelist,
editor and most notably a womanist and activist. Walker says in the New York Times Magazine in
1984, ―I don't choose womanism because it is 'better' than feminism … I choose it because I
prefer the sound, the feel, the fit of it; because I cherish the spirit of the women (like Sojourner)
the word calls to mind, and because I share the old ethnic-American habit of offering society a
new word when the old word it is using fails to describe behavior and change that only a new
word can help it more fully see‖ (p. 94). Basically Walker was saying that feminism needed a
more complex name to describe its entirety. Walker describes in one of her quotes the very
depiction of what she really felt about the difference of feminism and womanism. She says,
Fiction Essays
7
―womanist is to feminism as purple is to lavender.‖ This quote could be interpreted as the
womanist, by definition, could be stronger in opinion, values, and speech than the feminist.
In closing, the short story Everyday Use, was a really good read. It showed the depiction
of a young black woman who grew up poor in wealth, but rich in values and in love. These are
the characteristics of the author. These same values were shown throughout the story in the
form of heritage and culture. Walker expresses her views of heritage and culture in two ways.
These views are acted out through the character Dee and her younger sister Maggie. In my
research I hope that all areas of not only the story Everyday Use, but the author in its entirety have
been well explained and understood. Walker‘s view of values and life‘s circumstances were very
dominate and ―upfront.‖ She was passionate about everything she stood up for and refused to
settle. She is a legacy and all her writings all well appreciated.
Work Cited
Internet Source: xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/quilt/walker.html
Internet Source: summerintheville.vox.com/.../everyday-use-by-alice-walker.html
Internet Source: www.alicewalkersgarden.com/alice_walker_bio.html
The Oxford Companion To Women‘s Writing In The United States. Ed. Cathy Davidson, et al.,
New York Oxford: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1995.
The Oxford Companion To African American Literature. Ed. William L. Andrews, et al., New
York Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997
Fiction Essays
2
8
The Swimmer
Scott Worley
This is it. Your fifty years old, adventurous, and hung-over. You got carried away at last
night‘s party but now the sun is shining, friends are smiling and the warmth of a mid-summer
afternoon reminds you of your youth – Sunday. This day calls for more than resting, needs more
than solitude; the need for thrill must be satisfied. First thoughts, where can one find an
adventure in the Westchester County suburbs of New York City (Barnhisel)? Surely there must
be something! Remembering your swimming history, you decide to swim the eight miles of
water bodies between you and home. This water route will take you through the pools of your
neighbors, across highway 424, and through the public pool (Current-Garcia).
As the sun heats your back warming you for your swim and the green gin sits in your
glass waiting to be finished your mind begins to plot your departure from the current festivities.
Slipping away from the Westerhazy's party you make your way through the bushes and into the
Grahams‘ yard (Witalec). They were having a party as well but these natives know who you are.
They invited you to their party but you turned them down because secretly you know that your
better than that but, you can‘t let them know. Most of your conversation with them consists of
shallow smiles and corny jokes. As you make your way through the party kissing women and
shaking the hands of prominent men, you‘ve found it – the bar! Take a drink of scotch. It‘s
refreshing. Dive head first into the pool; your journey has officially begun (Barnhisel).
Oh sweet Lucinda, how challenging, how refreshing. Your makeshift river home is
worthy of a name that should be remembered and your wife Lucinda carries that name. The
Hammers', the Lears', the Howlands' and the Crosscups', all pools set the tone for the rest of the
journey.
A storm is on the way. You find shelter in the gazebo at the Welcher‘s house. They
aren‘t home but you don‘t mind. The rain can be heard on the trees ―as a water faucet being
turned on.‖ The rain passes and you move on to the next pool.
You are now facing the most challenging portion of your journey. When Lewis and Clark
canoed west they had to carry their canoe across dry mid-river land to reach the next body of
water. Highway 424 is your dry mid-river land and shall be crossed to cross the threshold into
Fiction Essays
9
the home stretch (Wilson). Standing on the edge of the highway feeling naked in your bathing
suit your confronted with the harsh reality of peoples‘ filth. Drivers are throwing beer cans at
you and no one cares to slow down and let you cross. Finally, you find a gap and Frogger your
way across to make your way to the public pool.
Everyone of you social status has done everything in his or her power to avoid the
humility of swimming in the public pool. You knew this would be a challenge and, to be honest
to yourself, it sounded like a good idea while sipping gin at the Westerhazy's but now that you
face the murky water full of regulars and lifeguards you must swim the distance. The water is
thick with the funk of the public and makes you feel less human but only because your idea of
human is individuality. Everyone has his or her place and your place is not in the public pool.
Then the unthinkable happens. You‘re kicked out! Who needs identification with your stature?
The public pool does and you are kicked out after swimming the length (Morace). No time to let
this trouble own you; you must press on because it‘s getting dark.
The Hallorans are an elderly, wealthy, communist couple. Well, most seem to think they
are communists; they‘re quite the liberals. They are also nudist (Wilson). You find them in their
back yard lounging by the pool. You figure, ‗when in Rome‘ and join them in their nudity. They
mentioned something about the loss of your home but that‘s absurd! After all, you‘re a
prominent well-spoken man; surely there has been some confusion. There is not much time to
chat so go on! Put your clothes on and swim the home stretch!
The Biswagners. They have invited you many times to their house parties and Lucinda
and yourself have consistently turned them down. Well, tonight they are having a party big
enough to be heard at the Halloran house! In fact, you turned down this very party's invitation to
be with the Westerhazys. Who cares? It will be awkward and unwelcoming but you can swim
the pool, have a gin, and leave hastily. The voyage home is more important than a bit of
humility, right? I mean, you are your own person and having accomplished the swim home will
be remembered more than a little gate crashing. The greeters know who you are and don‘t want
you to come in but you make your way through.
Making your way to the pool you run into the host Grace Biswagner. She calls him and
says, ―This part has everything, including a gate crasher!‖ But you are too smooth. No hit was
taken because you are confident and good with words. ―Do I rate a drink?‖ Grace turns her
back on you to attend other guests as you spot the bar for a whiskey. The bartender acts
Fiction Essays
10
strangely, as if you were not a prominent man but a beggar! He must be new not knowing the
appropriate way to serve guests. Bizarre. Swim the pool and move on.
If swimming the Biswagners or the public pool weren‘t enough, you now face Mrs.
Shirley Adams. Facing Shirley Adams was once a delightfully dangerous event but once the affair
ended it has become dreadful. Your ex-mistress finds you in her back yard and says something
more bizarre than the Biswagner‘s bartender, ―If you‘re here for money, I won‘t give you another
cent.‖ You‘ve never asked for money! Well, as surely as your memory reminds you. She then
tells you she‘s with another man – you don‘t care. Jump into the pool and move on; it‘s time to
go home.
The last two pools could be skipped. You‘re beat and home is just across the street,
might as well finish the length. The Clyde‘s pool is icy cold and for the first time you walk the
stairs into the pool, no dive. The last pool was practically waded through holding onto the side
to stay afloat.
You have arrived. The voyage over, the journey made, holding onto the fence posts
along your driveway you make your way to the door. All the lights are off. Surely Lucinda and
your daughters stayed at the Westerhayzs‘ for dinner. Check the garage. If they are home and
asleep then the car will be in the garage. The garage is locked and more strange the handles are
rusted. Back at the front door your anger and frustration get the best of you as you use what
strength is left to lunge into the door, pounding and yelling. At your lowest point you look up to
the window to find that the house is empty.
How could this happen? You are Neddy Merrill, husband of Lucinda Merrill and father
of four daughters (Wilson). Is this a dream? Or simply the foreshadow of what may happen?
John Cheever is the author of ―The Swimmer.‖ As Neddy Merrill moves from one pool
to the next as he slowly discovers that what he sees as reality is drastically different than true
reality. Each pool takes him farther from reality and farther from the lifestyle that he is used to
(Morace). The question that is left for the reader is whether Neddy‘s loss of house and family is
reality, meaning that the swim home took months, or, the loss is a dream foreshadowing what
will happen as a result of alcoholism.
Alcohol plays a big role in this story. The alcohol is not cheap because Neddy lives in a
wealthy part of town and only the best will due. Almost every house he stops at either offers him
a drink - usually gin - or he helps himself to a drink.
Fiction Essays
11
Green is a color that is repeated often in the introduction. Green is typically an archetype
for life, fertility, and hope. Because the setting is a wealthy part of New York City, it only makes
sense that prosperous colors are used. Green may have been used to set the ―spring‖ mood so
that it may end in the ―fall.‖ As the reader, I expected it to end in the fall but I did not expect
Neddy to actually loose his house! I figured the warnings from the last pools were
foreshadowing what could happen.
The thought that this journey actually took months is beyond me because I would
wonder where he slept? What would he have eaten? I lean towards Neddy‘s situation as either
foreshadowing alcoholism repercussions or demonstrating the American Dream fallacies. I
consider the later an option because it does not matter if the events actually happened. The
reader ought to be interested in what they can take from the story. This story shows the dark
side of the American dream (Witalec). Maybe drinking and throwing parties is not the focal point
of the American dream. Maybe humans need something internal and not something external.
Jesus says, ―You Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of
greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the
inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.‖ I
don‘t think that Cheever was trying to show Americans that we ought to give to the poor but
reading this reminds me of how much Americans are blessed. Trying to clean the outside of our
cup is fruitless! If Cheever were trying to ask the ultimate question of life‘s purpose, then
Godliness would be the answer.
I think it is interesting that the swim starts on Sunday afternoon. I do not assume that he
skipped church but Cheever must have known that Sunday was a day for rest. Maybe he grew up
in a church going family and is struggling with his own faith. If so, Cheever is not trying to
deliver a specific message but want to show a lifestyle for you to figure it out on your own.
Works Cited
"The Swimmer." Short Story Criticism. Ed. Janet Witalec. Vol. 57. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Literature
Resource Center. Gale. St Louis County Library. 11 Nov. 2009 <http://0go.galegroup.com.iii.slcl.org/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=slclpowersearch>.
Current-Garcia, Eugene. "The Swimmer: Overview." Reference Guide to American Literature.
Ed. Jim Kamp. 3rd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Gale. St
Fiction Essays
12
Louis County Library. 11 Nov. 2009 <http://0go.galegroup.com.iii.slcl.org/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=slclpowersearch>.
"Overview: 'The Swimmer'." Short Stories for Students. Ed. Kathleen Wilson. Vol. 2. Detroit:
Gale, 1997. Literature Resource Center. Gale. St Louis County Library. 11 Nov. 2009
<http://0-go.galegroup.com.iii.slcl.org/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=slclpowersearch>.
Morace, Robert A. "The Swimmer: Overview." Reference Guide to Short Fiction. Ed. Noelle
Watson. Detroit: St. James Press, Literature Resource Center. Gale. St Louis County
Library. 11 Nov. 2009 <http://0go.galegroup.com.iii.slcl.org/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=slclpowersearch>.
Barnhisel, Greg. "An overview of ―The Swimmer‖." Short Stories for Students. Detroit: Gale,
2002. Literature Resource Center. Gale. St Louis County Library. 11 Nov. 2009
<http://0-go.galegroup.com.iii.slcl.org/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=slclpowersearch>.
Fiction Essays
3
13
Bartleby, the Scrivener
Nathan Diveley
In 1853, Herman Melville wrote Bartleby, the Scrivener. When first reading the short
story, it is hard to know and understand what is really going on. Critics have looked at this story
for many years and have many different views on the story and what the characters represent. In
this story there are two main characters, which are the Lawyer (the narrator), and Bartleby, his
employee. Through the lives of Bartleby and the Lawyer, Melville provides his ideas of economy,
oppression, and humanity in the world around him in that day.
When you first look at the title Bartleby, the Scrivener a Story on Wall Street, you may
not see the last part but may be the biggest hint on what the story‘s underlining meaning is. This
story is taking place right in the middle of where the money flow was the greatest, and was the
sign of the American economy. During this time in the 1850s, the economy played big role in
the way work was being done. As we read about the Lawyer and his employees, we see that they
did not have great work ethics. It was said that, ―This close bond between employer and
employee became defunct when machine-oriented factory production eliminated the need for
skilled workers, requiring instead a large supply of hourly paid, unskilled laborers.‖(Elliot). You
can learn to understand this by looking at how Nippers, Ginger-nut, Turkey and Bartleby work.
It shows how the skilled workers are not needed anymore and are now replaced by unskilled
workers.
We can see in the lawyers personality when he says that he is a ―safe Man‖(Melville 600).
This shows that he does not want to make mistakes in his business and may be afraid to lose it.
A big part of the economy back then was the transition to capitalism during the 1850s. (Elliot).
We can see this comparison as well as the lawyer and Bartleby and how he was over Bartleby.
We see just a little of the economy in the text, ―So he sent him to my office as student at law,
errand- boy, cleaner and sweeper, at the rate of one dollar a week‖(Melville 604). It was said that
during that same time a farmer would work sixty-six hours a week and would make eighty-eight
cents a day. (Elliot). This is shown by how the economy was changing and how different the pay
was so extreme from one job to the next.
Fiction Essays
14
There is another thing the lawyer says to make it known where he stands. Not only is it
important that his business is in the epicenter of the business world but he makes it clear that he
is a ―snug business among rich men‘s bonds and mortgages and title-deeds‖ (Melville 600).
Melville is showing that the goal and what men are striving for is to be among the rich in every
aspect of life and anything outside of that is really nothing. Melville shows through the lawyer
how powerful he thinks money is by trying to pay Bartleby to leave, and shows through Bartleby
that money is not so important by placing the money in his handkerchief. The view of ―wallstreet‖ can be seen in the two main characters as the lawyer works with the economy by saying
―the easiest way of life is better‖, while Bartleby is saying ―I prefer not to‖(Melville600, 606). We
see toward the end of the story that Bartleby has already been victim of this economy by stating
―he had been suddenly removed by a change in the administration.‖ (Melville 625). It was best
said like this about the role of capitalism, ―The story's omnipresent walls—the Wall Street setting,
the tall brick buildings surrounding the office, the folding glass doors and portable screen that
divide the office internally, and finally the prison walls—serve as symbols of the growing division
between employer and employee and between the capitalist and working
classes‖(Hover,Sattelmeyer).
The next idea that Melville is trying to get across in this story is the idea of oppression.
The oppression is caused by the famous words of Bartleby ―I prefer not to‖. Melville is showing
here that he is not giving in to what society is doing or wants or thinks he should do. By doing
this he is being oppressed by the lawyer, which is representing society. We see that in his reply by
Bartleby, he is being different then the norm, and you are able to tell by how the lawyer reacts to
him. Some symbols that Melville shows are Bartleby being oppressed and by the usage of the
―screen‖ and the ―wall‖. Melville is showing that just because you go against society you are
hidden behind a ―screen‖ or looking at a ―dead wall‖. This represents the separation of society,
but also the feel of enclosement and the oppression that is caving in on Bartleby. As we are
always in society the lawyer says about being in the office ―he was always there‖(Melville 610).
Melville also uses the lawyer and Turkey to show the oppression of society on how he
approaches Bartleby. In the story we read that the lawyer is constantly calling out for him and
telling him to come to his office. For an example of society oppressing Bartleby, the story says
―Turkey, respectfully crowding himself into the contracted space behind the screen, and by so
doing, making me jostle the scrivener…‖(Melville 614). After this encounter Bartleby stopped
Fiction Essays
15
copying and started staring at the wall. Melville is showing that Bartleby is being oppressed by
society by getting into his space.
Melville uses the lawyer by showing that society is getting into the business of others.
The lawyer starts out by saying ―I mean no mischief‖ (Melville 612), this is showing that the
lawyer is now getting into Bartleby‘s personal things by looking inside of Bartleby‘s desk. Then
the lawyer tries to talk to Bartleby by asking him personal questions such as ―Will you tell me,
Bartleby, where you were born?‖ (Melville 613) and then asked right after ―will you tell me any
thing about yourself?‖ (Melville 613). By using this it shows that Melville is saying that maybe
society is starting to get more and more into peoples business. Right after the snooping around,
him asking the questions, and then finally the invasion of privacy, we see that Bartleby alltogether stops working and then later, he eventually dies. It seems that the walls of oppression
not only in his job, but also later in jail are closing in around him and maybe is the cause of
Bartleby‘s death at the end of the story.
The last idea that Melville is talking about in this story is the idea of Humanism. This
may be the biggest point out of the two that Melville is trying to get across. We can see this idea
throughout the story by the lawyer and Bartleby. It was said about Melville, that ―He constantly
challenged his readers with difficult works that betrayed an unpopular degree of pessimism about
the state of humanity‖(Elliot). When we read we notice the lawyer comes across Bartleby and
starts to analyze him, Bartleby challenges his idea of humanity. Elliott also wrote that ―As
Bartleby‘s behavior causes his ordinary world of routine and unshaken ―assumptions‖ to collapse,
the lawyer is forced to confront issues about human condition from which he had been
previously sheltered‖ (Elliot).
When reading the reaction of the lawyer, you can tell he is being challenged by this
thought. As the lawyer is challenged with this idea of humanity and how to handle it he then
comes up with an idea that he ―can cheaply purchase a delicious self- approval. To befriend
Bartleby; to humor him in his strange willfulness, will cost me little or nothing, while I lay up in
my soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for my conscience‖ (Melville 608). We can see
that the one thing he really cares about is not Bartleby, but what it will cost him to do this, and
this shows how he us really focused on himself. As many humans, they feel that they are helping
because they are being a good person, but really they do not care all that much. Melville, by this
Fiction Essays
16
statement is showing humanity and how most people do not really care about others, but what
can they do for me or benefit me.
Now we looked at the lawyer, but what is Melville trying to teach the lawyer through
Bartleby. Elliot also stated that, ―Bartleby‘s actions and demeanor suggest to the lawyer, perhaps
for the first time, that existence has no meaning or purpose and it is possible that we live in a
cold and indifferent universe‖(Elliot). This shows that humanity is not really caring for other
humans and in that we as a human race really do not help one another and segregate a group
from another because they are different and not like them. This would have been so different for
the lawyer, because everyone around him was conforming to one another, but now Bartleby is
going against the lawyer‘s view of humanity.
When reading the ending, we see the lawyer actually say ―Ah Bartleby! Ah
Humanity!‖(Melville 626). We see that the lawyer feels that humanity is just lost and there is no
hope for the human being. Maybe he is even feeling a little bit of disappointment because he was
not able to help Bartleby. Better said ―He has failed to help even one man. He can do nothing
to alter the human condition‖(Borey). This is showing that the human condition is helpless and
it really does not matter what a human does, it will not help another. This is the struggle that the
story faces and that Melville is trying to bring out in this story is the idea of humanity. Can a
human really help another or truly care about another?
The character of Bartleby is also teaching the Lawyer about isolation. ―Through Bartleby's
disruption, the attorney gradually realizes the isolation of humanity‖(Fields). The question
Melville is asking the person to answer is what would you do as a human if a guy like Bartleby
were your employee? Melville shows what the lawyer does by his actions. This was written about
this specific subject, ―But in the end, he makes choices that amount to abandonment of Bartleby.
If his action is something any human would do, then the abandonment of Bartleby is a comment
on humanity‖ (Borey). By this statement it really shows that know matter what kind of human
you are, you have done the same thing and all humans are the same in their role with other
humans. ―These parting words, this small story about one strange man becomes a statement
about all of humanity‖(Schmoop).
When reading this short story by Melville, we can see the difficulties in understanding the
text and the meaning of the story. Looking at the story and the other opinions on the story we
find there are many different views of the story and perhaps still do not understand this short
Fiction Essays
17
story that Melville wrote. With that said, when reading carefully we are able to see some ideas
that Melville is trying to get across through the characters of this story. The three ideas that
Melville is getting across is the impact of the economy, the role of oppression in society and the
idea of humanity that one most deal with in their life.
Works Cited
"Bartleby the Scrivener." Shmoop: Study Guides, Teacher Resources. Ed. Schmoop editorial team. Web.
20 Nov. 2009. Web.
Borie, Eddie. "GradeSaver: Bartleby the Scrivener Study Guide : Summary and Analysis of of
Pages 3-14." Study Guides &
Essay Editing | GradeSaver. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. Web.
Elliot, Mark. "Bartleby the Scrivener, A Tale of Wall Street (Criticism): Information from
Answers.com." Answers.com: Wiki
Q&A combined with free online dictionary, thesaurus, and
encyclopedias. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
Fields, Chuck. "An Analysis of the Attorney's Change in Melville's Bartleby the Scrivener: A
Story of Wall Street -." Associated Content - associatedcontent.com. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
Foley, Barbara. From Wall Street to Astor Place:Historicizing Melville?s ?Bartleby?. American Literature.
Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
Gioia, Dana. The Art of the Short Story. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. Print.
James D. Hart and and Phillip W. Leininger. "Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." The
Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press. 1995.
Encyclopedia.com. 20 Nov. 2009
Kuebrich, David. "Bartleby, the Scrivener: American History Through Literature." Web. 20 Nov.
2009. Web.
Melville, Herman. Bartleby, the Scriviner. The Art of a Short Story. New York: Pearson Longman,
2006. Print.
"SparkNotes: Melville Stories: Themes, Motifs, and Symbols." SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular
Study Guides. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. W
Fiction Essays
4
18
The Open Boat
Megan Sabourin
Can bad turn into good? In The Open Boat we find that this can be true in different ways.
Stephen Crane had a personal experience that changed his life. Crane wrote The Open Boat using
personal experience, ordinary people, ideas and perceptions, imagery, concern, vivid language and
personal surroundings to portray how man can overcome obstacles. Not knowing where any of
the outcomes of this experience would end up, he lives to tell us his story and the fate of the lives
of his fellow men through his own narrative story.
Stephen Crane was born in Newark, New Jersey, the fourteenth child of Jonathan
Townley Crane, a Methodist minister (Lauter.) The family moved frequently, and Crane‘s formal
education included brief stays at Pennington Seminary, Lafayette College, Claveack College, and
Syracuse University. At Claverack, a military school, he gained the rank of adjutant and may have
had experiences that contributed to his later success in writing about war, the subject for which
he became famous (Lauter.) In 1891 Crane left Syracuse to work as a journalist in New York
City, where he lived in a community of struggling artist and medical students (Lauter.)
Crane‘s interest in the powerful role of environment in shaping character and determining lives
derived both from the ideas of Charles Darwin and from his work as journalist (Lauter.) Crane
found himself working as a war reporter in Mexico, Cuba, and Greece (Drabble.) With the
publication of his Civil War novel, The Red badge of Courage (1895), when he was twenty-four years
old, Stephen Crane became famous in the United States and England (Lauter.) His career as a
poet and short story writer wasn‘t very long, but his work has and is lasting throughout the ages.
It was on New Year‘s Eve, 1896, when the twenty-four-year old Stephen Crane boarded
the Commodore, a large tug bringing arms and men to the Cuban Revolution. Three days
later the boat sprang a leak, and the pumps failed. Working as an ordinary seaman, Crane
helped bail the flooding water until the order came to abandon ship. Crane and the other
survivors spent thirty hours on the open sea before reaching land (213 Crane.) From this
experience bad can turn into good.
―The Open Boat‖ is a fictionalized account of a very traumatic personal experience in
Crane‘s life (Bernardo.) Interestingly, however, this does not make Crane‘s story realistic; it
Fiction Essays
19
actually creates a kind of hyper-realism, an excruciatingly vivid nightmare state (Bernardo.) A ship
on which he was a passenger sank off the coast of Florida, and he found himself one of four in a
tiny open dinghy, struggling to make it through a narrow strip of rough sea and punding surf that
separated them from dry land (Bernardo.) Stephen Crane was aboard the Commodore when it sank,
and on January 7, 1897, ―Stephen Crane‘s own Story,‖ the dispatch he filed from Jacksonville,
Florida (Bohner.) The story derives directly from his experience in a dinghy adrift at sea for thirty
hours after the sinking of the Commodore, a steamship illegally bound for Cuba shortly before the
Spanish-American War. In exploring the developing consciousness of the narrator, his growing
awareness of nature, and his deepening relationships to other human beings, the story measures
the vastness of human loneliness and defines a brotherhood of those who have encountered the
sea (Lauter.) Crane overcame this personal experience not by seeing it, but by living it.
Crane writes about extreme experiences that are confronted by ordinary people. His
characters are not larger-than-life, but they touch the mysterious edges of their capacities for
perception, action, and understanding (Vanouse.) Cranes characters play a major role in this
story, their not looked as a minor character. Through this experience everyone was needed to
overcome the sea. In his themes and styles, Crane is an avant-garde writer (Vanouse.) Crane's
works reflect many of the major artistic concerns at the end of the nineteenth century, especially
naturalism, impressionism, and symbolism (Vanouse.) His works insist that we live in a universe
of vast and indifferent natural forces, not in a world of divine providence or a certain moral
order. "A Man Said to the Universe" is useful in identifying this aspect of Crane. But Crane's
vivid and explosive prose styles distinguish his works from those by many other writers who are
labeled naturalists (Vanouse.)
In The Open Boat we see Stephen Crane is comparable to both naturalists and
impressionists in his desire to shock readers with new and often disturbing ideas and perceptions
(Lauter.) In his writing he likes to put realism with actual events that have happened in his life.
Crane‘s ―Open Boat‖ is an effort to communicate the meaning of man at the grave-edge. The
survivors of the shipwreck ―felt that they could then be Interpreters.‖ But, as was the case with
the correspondent in childhood, ―the great sea‘s voice‖speaking of the indifference of the
universe and the consequent need for compassion and comradeship among men may prove to be
a foreign language (Bohner.) The Open Boat put life into what he had to say about fighting the
storm.
Fiction Essays
20
Stephen Crane gave a journalistic account of his adventure on the front page of the New
York Press. In the newspaper there was The New York City Sketch where Crane was able to get
―A Detail‖ published in the newspaper. The story was reprinted in 1898 with ―The Open Boat,‖
and the two works express parallel naturalistic themes. In both, individuals are shown to struggle
for communication while being buffeted by tumultuous forces (Vanouse.)
Stephen Cranes use of imagery is one that the reader is able to catch right off the bat.
Crane uses specific words to get the readers attention to see what the characters had to battle
against. In the first line of the story you see, ―None of them knew the color of the sky.‖ This
starts the story out saying that there‘s going to be struggle and there is confusion. The reader
understands that one of the main ideas in the story is going to be being lost. In the end of this
short paragraph we see that the men knew the color of the sea. These men knew what their job
was. They knew what they had to do like it was their job. The reader continues to see the color of
the sea throughout the story. It continues to tell us that even though their lost, they know what
their doing, all of this through the color of the sea. The story ends with the same imagery again.
―When it came night, the white waves paced to and fro in the moonlight, and the wind brought
the sound of the great sea‘s voice to the men on the shore, and they felt that they could then be
interpreters (Gioa 213.) They made it to the end, they knew the sea. They knew it more by just
the colors, but by every aspect that the sea could have. It was like it was their own. Crane‘s
imagery is vivid, but the works provide final interpretations. These qualities contribute to Crane‘s
multi-layered irony (Vanouse.) Crane uses certain imagery to let the reader understand their fight
against the sea.
From the opening paragraph the four men personify the ocean and view it as actively
hostile. The wavers are ―wrongfull‖ and ―barbarously‖ abrupt and tall, adverbs which apply only
to moral beings, not insensate objects. Each wave seems to them to be consciously malign, ―the
final ourburst of the ocean, the last effort of the grim water.‖ As bleak as their chances appear in
this unequal contest, the men can still find meaning in the struggle because of the power of their
antagonist. But the experience has in store for them a still bleaker revelation. From a night adrift
in the immense ocean, they conclude that nature is ―indifferent, flatly indifferent.‖ The struggle is
meaningless if the antagonist is oblivious to both victory and defeat. Searching for a symbol of
his plight, the correspondent settles on ―a high cold star on a inters night (Bohner.)‖ The joint
recognition of their plights has led to the development of a ―subtle brotherhood of men,‖ a
Fiction Essays
21
mystic communion. The unconcern of the universe brings to their sharpened minds a heightened
concern for other men. This sense of community among the four is dramatized in section iv
through the dialogue (Bohner.) Since survival depends on selflessness and cooperation, Crane
emphasizes the oneness of the group by not assigning particular speeches to individual characters
(Bohner.) In "The Open Boat," Crane has been seen as a symbolist. Perhaps it is most
appropriate to see the story as a skeptical balancing of concern with vast archetypes with an equal
concern with psychology of perception: personal and cultural symbol grids (Vanouse.) Crane likes
to keep showing the fact that these men know how to row a boat. Many people know how to
row a boat though. It‘s different in the fact that it keeps being played over and over in this story.
Crane is showing the fact that these men were able to work together, they were able to talk to
each other and follow each others orders. They were united as a group, and they were able to
conquer the storm in the end.
In addition to vivid language, Crane uses carefully-chosen anecdotes to make the situation
seem harrowing in order to show how they overcame the sea. The extent to which these men are
poised on the brink of life and death is illustreated by the seagull that lands on the captains head;
as Crane says, ―The captain naturally wished to knock it away with the end of the heavy painter,
but he did not dare do it, because anything resembling an emphatic gesture would have capsized
this freighted boat; and so, with his open hand, the captain gently and carefully waved the gull
away.‖ To have remained in this state for thirty hours seems almost incomprehensible
(Bernardo.) Crane remarkable use of rhythm in this story reminds one of the motion of the sea;
while each phrase has a distinct sense of rising and falling, each one is also a different length, just
like the waves—some of which are huge and rolling, while others are merely little swells(
Bernardo.) He usually defines his characters with sharply focused comments and vivid images.
Such compression and imagery and an intense concern with color have led numerous critics to
see in his writing a literary parallel to impressionist paining (Lauter.) Stephen Crane‘s works
present sudden shifts in tone and point of view, and frequently the works end without
establishing either certainty about characters or resolution of thematic issues.
As Crane shows in this story, the protagonist‘s salvation is dependent upon whether or not he
will adapt to his surroundings and help his fellow man, not whether or not he can conquer
nature; it is to big, and too impersonal, and man is just a speck against its awesome power. The
best one can do is learn nature‘s ways and work with, not agains them (Bernardo.) The imperiled
Fiction Essays
22
survivors could not take their eyes off the waves, for to let their guard down for a moment would
mean certain death. Significantly, Crane does not deal with the question of heroism; the men in
the boat do not feel heroic, nor do they ask us to think of them in those terms. They are simply
doing what they need to in order to survive, and supporting one another in this effort (Bernardo.)
At the simplest level, the story deals with the conflict of man against nature (Bohner.)
Crane seems to have first learned he was tubercular when he tried to enlist in the army in
1897 to go to Cuba. It appears he did little to regain his health. When he became very ill in April
1900, Cora took him in desperation to a sanitorium in the Black Forest in Germany, where he
died on June 5 (Lauter.) H.G. Wells, who described his short story ―The Open Boat‖ (1898;
which was based on personal experience of shipwreck) as ―an imperishable gem (Drabble.)‖
―The Open Boat‖ balances cosmic uncertainties with glimpses of human achievements in
awareness, cooperation, and courage (Lauter.) Crane showed mans achievement of the sea
through experience, people, ideas and perceptions, imagery, concern, language and mans
surroundings.The story that many critics believe is Crane‘s best piece of work, is a remarkable
fusion of his respect for the power of the external world and his intense concern with the
mysterious inner world of emotions and fantasies (Lauter.)
Works Cited
Bernardo, Karen. "Commentary." Web.
Bohner, Steve. Web.
Drabble, Margaret. THE OXFORD COMPANION TO ENGLISH LITERATRE: NEW
EDITION. Great Britain:Oxford
UP, 1985. Print.
Lauter, Paul. "The Heath Anthology of American Literature." Web.
Vanouse, Donald. Web.
Fiction Essays
5
23
Bartleby, the Scrivener
Michael Womble
Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street is a short story, or rather a long short story,
by Herman Melville in 1856. It is a story that has ―intrigued critics‖ (Murphy). Though there are
numerous themes that lie within the story, there are some that stand out above the rest. We can
clearly pull out themes such as American economy (and one‘s response to it) and food. Melville
uses these themes to provoke thought on how business in America affects us as humans and
what we do about it.
Melville‘s background surely had a lot to do with why he wrote this story about a man
refusing to submit to the terms of the American economy. Merriman notes that Herman Melville
was born on August 1, 1819 in New York City, NY. Son of Maria Gansevoort and Allan Melville,
Herman grew up in a wealthy home. Melville attended Albany Classical School for a year in 1835
after his father died.
Melville held some average jobs such as a farmer and a cabin boy when he was young.
Then, in 1841, he set off to sea on the Acushnet, a whaling ship. This voyage had a large impact
on his life. (Merriman) Bartleby: The Scrivener is a significant story because it was written by a
man who chose to personally get away from the hectic lifestyle of America for an extended
period of time, just as the main character of the story chose to disconnect from it as well.
Melville went on to write many novels and stories about life on the sea such as Typee and Omoo
(1847) and Mardi: and a Voyage Thither (1849) (Merriman). Moby Dick, (1851) easily the most
successful of all of Melville‘s works, is also a novel about sea life. Moby Dick, which is now an
American classic, was not raved about by critics of Melville‘s time at first (Gioia).
Melville also wrote many short stories and poems. He was forced to start writing short
stories to make a living after his first few novels did not take off very quickly (Gioia). While
Melville did gain some popularity at one point in his life, he was not exactly famous when he died
in 1891. But since his death his works have gained much attention (Herman Melville Biography).
Much of Melville‘s writings reflect Melville‘s life. His life comes out a lot in his writing, which
makes it more exciting, as well as difficult to understand.
Fiction Essays
24
Melville wrote Bartleby the Scrivener in 1856. In this story, the narrator, whose name is
not mentioned, is a successful lawyer on Wall Street in New York City. His business has taken off
enough for him to hire two scriveners (copiers of the law) and an office errand boy. The two
scriveners names, or nicknames, are Turkey and Nippers. The errand boy‘s nickname is Ginger
Nut. Turkey and Nippers are both good workers, but a little quirky. Turkey works well in the
morning, but not in the afternoon, and vice versa for Nippers.
Bartleby arrives on the scene in response to the lawyer‘s need for another scrivener in the
office. He is assigned to a small corner in the office next to the lawyer. His corner is sealed off
with a folding screen so that he is out of sight of the lawyer while at work. And his view is that of
a brick wall on the building right outside a small window.
Bartleby works hard and diligently at first. Day and night he copies by hand. But he does
not speak and he does not move from his desk. One day the lawyer asks Bartleby to help with a
small task and Bartleby responds, ―I would prefer not to,‖ (Gioia). The rest of the bulk of the
story consists of the lawyer and his struggle with dealing with Bartleby and his refusal to do what
is requested of him or to function in society. Bartleby starts off by simply ―preferring‖ not to do
simple tasks. Then he refuses to do work at all. The lawyer later finds out that Bartleby never
moves from the office. He sleeps in the office every night and stays to himself. He also eats
nothing but ginger nuts, to the lawyer‘s knowledge. The lawyer goes back and forth between the
decision to either keep Bartleby on staff at the office or fire him.
When the lawyer does finally fire Bartleby, he even refuses to leave the office. He prefers
to stand motionless and stare out his window all day. So Bartleby finally moves the location of his
office. The landlord of the old building puts Bartleby in jail, where he eventually dies of
starvation (Gioia).
The characters are the focal point of the story. Each character has a unique personality
and their share of odd traits. Melville describes Turkey as ―a short, pursy Englishman of about
my own age, that is somewhere not far from sixty. In the morning…his face was of a fine florid
hue, but after twelve o‘clock…it blazed like a grate full of Christmas coals.‖ He was a good
worker in the morning, very calm. But in the afternoon he was ―apt to be altogether too
energetic‖ (Gioia). He became very clumsy.
Nippers, on the other hand, worked better in the afternoon. In the morning, he was
obsessed with situating his desk to perfection. Melville describes him as ―a whiskered, sallow,
Fiction Essays
25
and, upon the whole, rather piratical-looking young man of about five and twenty. I always
deemed him the victim of two evil powers – ambition and indigestion.‖
The narrator, or the lawyer, is (or so he thinks) a more level-headed man than the rest. As
he says, ―I am a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction
that the easiest way of life is the best,‖ (Gioia). But he does not live life as simply as he thinks. He
overanalyzes many situations to the point of obsession (i.e. the situation with Bartleby) and he is
very fickle. He also states ―I seldom lose my temper,‖ which is true. But he comes close very
often. He is, however, to caught up in being civilized and outwardly kept together to let his
emotions get the best of him.
Bartleby is a very interesting character, to say the least. At first he is extremely quiet,
reserved, and almost motionless. As the story goes on, he just gets worse and worse. He works
hard the first couple weeks on the new job. But after a while he stops working at all, because he
prefers not to. He stops eating (except for the occasional ginger nut). He only speaks when
spoken to. And he never goes outside.
One might say that he is driven to insanity due to his job. He works a tedious job that
even the lawyer states is ―very dull, wearisome, and lethargic…I can readily imagine that to some
sanguine temperaments it would be altogether intolerable.‖ And on top of the job description, he
is stuck in a corner with little contact with others. But one might also say that he was a little nuts
(pun intended) from the start, and then simply went more nuts.
One major idea put forth in the story is that of the American economy and business and
what it requires of us. The story takes place on Wall Street, the center of business in New York
City at that time. Some critics (including Sandberg) view the lawyer‘s employees as mindless work
horses, doing only what they are told. But Bartleby serves as the defiant character who refuses to
abide by our society‘s rules. Sandberg states,
―At first Bartleby is the perfect office drone supporting the horrendous machinations
of an economic work model which serves to denigrate the American working classes…
But then Bartleby through some a priori channel begins to reject the system in which he
is a key part. He refuses to perform the job functions for which he was hired… We
cheer as he calmly and flatly refuses to continue with his demeaning work functions.‖
Sandberg also states that Bartleby is ahead of his time in that through him ―we see the first vague
stirring of the coming Socialist revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist economic model.‖
Fiction Essays
26
This is a story in which it is difficult to distinguish a clear protagonist and antagonist.
Sandberg obviously views Bartleby as the protagonist and the lawyer as the antagonist. While not
as passionate about it, Mollinger agrees, ―…the lawyer benefits from his bond with Bartleby, for,
as he says, Bartleby is useful and valuable to him.‖ The lawyer is concerned for Bartleby as a
person, but he is also concerned for himself and the prosperity of his business. Though he knows
Bartleby is trouble, he keeps him along for the sake of his company.
Another major theme in the story is that of food. As Mollinger states, ―To eat or not to
eat is the question which reverberates throughout the story and in the minds of the characters.
‗Bartleby the Scrivener‘ is a feast of food in which all the characters partake.‖ Mollinger notes
that Melville was not trying to hide this theme of food. He even named the characters after food:
Turkey, Nippers (as in, to take a nip), and Ginger Nut.
Melville uses metaphors of food to describe Turkey: as a horse feels his oats. Nippers
suffers from indigestion. And Ginger nut is always bringing ginger nuts, apples and cakes to his
fellow employees (Mollinger).
My personal belief is that the theme of food was placed in the story, as an extension of
the theme on American economy. America is a consumerist country. We indulge in our wealth
and pleasures and we rely on them as if we needed them as much as food. Food is used as a
symbol of America‘s hunger for wealth and power.
Mollinger adds to this when he says,
Though Bartleby is a "millstone," an affliction, a haunting apparition which produces
melancholy in the lawyer, it is a "fraternal melancholy" caused in both of them by a
deprivation of needs. It is the lawyer's own need which causes him to allow Bartleby to
cling to him. In mothering, feeding, and caring for the scrivener, the lawyer is mothering
himself. For all his rationalizations, he identifies with Bartleby and feeds him as he
himself wishes to be fed.
The lawyer responded to the demands of the American economy like many others do. He
neglected his own desires (to rid himself of Bartleby) for the sake of his business. Bartleby,
however, responded differently. He went as far as to deprive himself even of food, so that he
would not neglect his desires for the sake of the demands of the American lifestyle.
Mollinger notes, ―The story certainly is not just about Wall Street. It is about basic needs, the
symbiotic ways these needs are fulfilled, and the anger, distrust, and despair which results when
Fiction Essays
27
they are not met.‖ Bartleby recognized that his needs were not being fulfilled by the superficial
lifestyle of Wall Street. He preferred not to partake in the business and hectic nature of the
economy. So he didn‘t.
Works Cited
Gioia, Dana, and R. S. Gwynn. The Author of the Short Story. Pearson, 2006. Print.
"Herman Melville Biography." UNet Users' Home Pages. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.
<http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/melvillebio.html>.
Merriman, C. D. "Herman Melville - Biography and Works." The Literature Network: Online classic
literature, poems, and quotes.
Essays & Summaries. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.online-literature.com/melville/#>.
Mollinger, Robert N. "Herman Melville's 'Bartleby the Scrivener - A Story of Wall Street'"
Information Technology. Web. 20 Oct
2009.<http://web.ku.edu/~zeke/bartleby/mollinge.html>.
Murphy, Bruce, ed. Benet's Readers Encyclopedia. 4th ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1996. Print.
Sandberg, David. "Review of Herman Melville's Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street
BrothersJudd.com." Brothers
Judd Good Books and Recommended Reading - 03-Nov-09. Web. 20 Oct.
2009. <http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/233>.
Fiction Essays
6
28
Everyday Use
Jessica Diveley
In the short story Everyday Use, written by Alice Walker, there are many conflicts. The
mother and Maggie view Dee as a figure on a pedestal. Dee views her mother and sister in more
of a pathetic light. Though they all come from the same culture, not much is still viewed the
same. In this story Walker reveals the oppression and personal importance of her heritage and
life through the conflicting the values and the cultural importance of Dee and her mother and
sister.
From the time that Dee was little, she was different than her family. She did not view life
in the same way as her sister and mother. Unlike her family, Dee experienced beauty, luck, style
and intelligence. This is a description of Dee from her mother: ― But even the first glimpse of leg
out of the car tells me it is Dee. Her feet were always neat-looking, as if God himself had shaped
them with a certain style‖ (Walker 812). Though with all of her fortune, Dee was never satisfied
with what her family could provide for her. She always wanted more in life. She was constantly
trying to keep up with what was in style. Once she got out on her own, she soon began to
completely change her view on life. On her first visit home, this became obvious. ―When Dee
(Wangero) comes home to visit Mama and Maggie, right away the readers see the differences.
Dee has changed her name to an "African" name and is collecting the objects of her past‖
(Moore).
She would take many photographs and made sure to include the house in most of them.
This showed that she sees this place she is visiting as her ‗poor childhood,‘ rather than her home.
The dress that Dee was wearing represented very much the African culture. Her mom described
it as, ―A dress down to the ground in this hot weather. A dress so loud it hurts my eyes. There
are yellows and oranges enough to throw back the light of the sun. I feel my whole face warming
from the heat waves it throws‖ (Walker 813). While greeting her mother, she reveals her new
African name, Wangero. She claimed that her old name was from the ones who oppressed them,
when in reality, it had come from a long line of Dee‘s. She had tried to get more in touch with
her heritage by changing her name, when in fact the name Dee was part of her heritage. By
changing her name, Dee was not trying to get closer to her specific family, but instead closer to
Fiction Essays
29
her African heritage. David White believes that Walker ―is challenging that part of the movement
that does not acknowledge and properly respect the many African-Americans who endured
incredible hardships in their efforts to survive in a hostile environment. She uses the character of
Dee to demonstrate this misguided black pride‖ (White).
Dee continued to prove this point through the story. She would take artifacts from the
house to put in her own home as decoration. These were items that her family used on a daily
basis. She finally pulled the last straw when she wanted some old quilts that were promised to
Maggie for her future home. The simple fact that Dee wanted these quilts and did not want her
name were in contradiction of each other. These were quilts that were pieced together by her
mother‘s sister and her mother‘s mother, whom all were named Dee. Dee‘s mom even offered
the quilts to her long ago, but she did not have any interest in them then because they were ―old
fashioned and out of style‖ (Walker 815). She wants to hang them up in her house. She could not
fathom the thought of Maggie using them like a real blanket. Dee‘s mother soon stood up to her
and pulled the quilts out of her hands and put them into Maggie‘s, which was quite unusual to
Maggie.
The mother‘s choice of Maggie over ‗Miss Wangero‘ signifies Walker‘s discovery of her
own literary ancestor, thus writing in fiction a conclusion to the essay ―In Search of Our Mothers‘
Gardens.‖ Baker and Pierce-Baker argue that when Maggie finally smiles ―a real smile‖ at the end
of the story as she and her mother watch Dee‘s car disappear in a cloud of dust, it is because she
knows her ‗mother‘s holy recognition of the scarred daughter‘s sacred status as quilter is the best
gift of a hard-pressed womankind to the fragmented goddess of the present‘ (Piedmont-Martin).
Dee‘s mother and sister value their lives and where they come from a bit differently.
Dee‘s mother was never able to finish school. She was not a sharp woman. What she did have,
though, was practicality and strength. She knew how to make and do things for herself. Her
accomplishments were much different than Dee‘s. Her mother may not have done many great
things with her life, but her accomplishments were in the small things. The mother recounted, for
example, that, ―One winter I knocked a bull calf straight in the brain between the eyes with a
sledge hammer and had the meat hung up to chill before nightfall‖ (Walker 811). She did not live
with many comforts as Dee has come into. When she sits down after a days work, she feels tired,
but fulfilled from what she has done.
Fiction Essays
30
Maggie is her mother‘s daughter. She, like her mom, also does not have much. Unlike
Dee, Maggie is shy, unfortunate, homey, and unintelligible. Maggie relates to her mom much
more than to her sister, Dee. Walker gives an example of Maggie being unfortunate when
recalling a house fire: ―sometimes I can still hear the flames and feel Maggie‘s arms sticking to
me, her hair smoking and her dress falling off her in little black paper flakes. Her eyes seemed
stretched open, blazed open by the flames reflected in them‖ (Walker 811). Though an
unfortunate young lady, Maggie is happy and content with her life.
There are many scenes in this story contrasting Dee and Maggie. Maggie thinks ―her sister
has held life always in the palm of her hand, that ‗no‘ is a word the world never learned to say to
her‖ (Walker 810). In the story, after the description of Maggie‘s horrific fire tragedy, it says,
―And Dee. I see her standing off under the sweet gum tree she used to dig gum out of; a look of
concentration on her face as she watched the last dingy gray board of the house fall in toward the
red-hot brick chimney. Why don‘t you do a dance around the ashes? I‘d wanted to ask her. She
hated the house that much‖ (Walker 811). Here you have Maggie being burned severely, and then
you have Dee safe outside just watching this whole scenario take place. Another contrast is
shown within the simpler lives led by Maggie and her mother. They are content in what they
have, unlike Dee. When Dee takes photos of them, they feel like they are being put on display.
When Dee is rummaging through their house, they feel like Dee is belittling them by wanting
their things for display, when these are things for everyday use for them. ―When Mama takes the
dasher handle in her hands, she is symbolically touching the hands of all those who used it before
her. Her appreciation for the dasher and the quilts is based on love for the people who made and
used them‖ (White).
In the beginning of this story, you can see how the mother and Maggie are ignorant
people through the eyes of Dee. The further that you get into the story, you will begin to see the
ignorance of Dee, rather than the mother and Maggie. The mother and Maggie may not have the
intelligence of Dee, but they do have a much better sense of the importance of their heritage and
the value that they put on life, ideas that Dee could barely begin to understand.
Walkers‘ value of life and heritage is reflected in these fictional characters. Alice Walker was
born in 1944, where there were many rough times especially for African-Americans. This was a
time of much segregation and hardships. Walker specifically relates to the character of Maggie.
When Walker was young, she was shot in the eye with a bb gun. She was unable to be taken to
Fiction Essays
31
the hospital, because her family did not own a car. Walker was blinded as a result of this. This
sounds very familiar to the life and character of Maggie. Walker writes about Maggie, ―Have you
ever seen a lame animal, perhaps a dog run over by some careless person rich enough to own a
car, sidle up to someone who is ignorant enough to be kind to him? That is the way that Maggie
walks. She has been like this, chin on chest, eyes on ground, feet in shuffle, ever since the fire
that burned the other house to the ground‖ (Walker 811). About her own life Walker says,
―books became my world because the world I was in was very hard‖ (Gioia 809). Walker also
relates very well to the mother in the story of Everyday Use, because her mother also was a
farmhand. The way that families treated each other baffled Walker, who believed they should be
sticking together through the tough times. She commented, ―I was curious to know why people
in families (specifically black families) are often cruel to each other and how much of this cruelty
is caused by outside forces such as various social injustices, segregation, unemployment, etc.‖
(Gioia 809).
Walker wrote this short story in 1973. The times in this era reflect the story very well. White
shows how Walker uses quilts as a significance of heritage in that specific time:
The term ―Negro‖ had been recently removed from the vocabulary, and had been replaced
with ―Black.‖ There was ―Black Power,‖ ―Black Nationalism,‖ and ―Black Pride.‖ Many blacks
wanted to rediscover their African roots, and were ready to reject and deny their American
heritage, which was filled with stories of pain and injustice.
Quilts are referred to in many of Walker‘s works. In The Color Purple, she uses a quilt to
help a dying woman remember the mother of her adopted daughter… In ―Everyday Use‖ the
bond is between women of several generations. Elaine Showalter observes in her essay ―Piecing
and Writing,‖ ‗in contemporary writing, the quilt stands for a vanished past experience to which
we have a troubled and ambivalent relationship.‘ This statement seems to apply specifically to
the quilts of ―Everyday Use‖ (White).
In the story you can see some examples of the cultural times by the way that Dee was dressed
and also the way that Dee changed her name: ―She‘s dead. I couldn‘t bare it any longer, being
named after the people who oppress me‖ (Walker 813). Through these examples you can see that
it was a time of black empowerment.
Through the situation of the quilt in the story, you see that Walker is saying that, ―The history
of Africans in America is filled with stories of pain, injustice, and humiliation. It is not as
Fiction Essays
32
pleasing as a colorful African heritage that can be fabricated, like a quilt, from bits and pieces that
one finds attractive. It is a real heritage that is comprised of real people: people who are
deserving of respect and admiration‖ (White). Through the confliction of these characters, Alice
Walker reveals her true ideas of the value of her life and heritage. She thought the way that
families treated each other during that time was unfortunate and through Walkers history, you
can also see that she writes her view in the characters of Maggie and the mother.
Works Cited
"Black Panther Party." Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. Web.
Gioia, Dana, comp. The Art of the Short Story. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. Print.
Moore, Julie. "Heritage and Symbolism in Alice Walker's Everyday Use, Page 2 of 2 -." Associated
Content - associatedcontent.com.
29 May 2007. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. Web.
Piedmont-Marton, Elisabeth. Short Stories for Students. Gale Research, 1997. Web. 22 Oct. 2009.
Web.
Walker, Alice. Everyday Use. The Art of A Short Story. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. Print.
"What Happened in 1973 including Pop Culture, Prices, Events and Technology." Where People,
History and Memories Join Together from The People History Site. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. Web.
White, David. "?Everyday Use?: Defining African-American Heritage." Luminarium: Anthology of
English Literature. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. Web.
Fiction Essays
7
33
Separating
Laura Hocking
The short story, Separating, was written in 1979 by John Updike (Gioia 800). This
particular tale is one of many in a long line of other short stories about a couple named Richard
and Joan Maple (Searles 1). Separating, as noted in the title, focuses on the division of these two
people. This story narrates how they finally reveal to their four children that they are separating.
It does not give account in this chapter as to why they plan on doing so, not even on how they
got to this point or even what happens beyond it. The focus in it is merely to reveal the nasty
truth to Judith, Richard Jr., John, and Margaret Maple.
Battles rage from every direction within the main character, who is Richard, the father.
He did not see any of it coming and in this sudden yet seemingly unending war, there were three
prominent challenges that began tearing him apart. First, there was his obvious struggle with his
wife, thus implying the separation. Then, there was the struggle with his four children. Finally, all
of these preceding hardships led up to the one battle that consumed him and that was the
struggle with himself. Each was a bit misleading to him and through them he found himself being
led down a path into discovering who he had become.
Starting at the beginning, the root of the whole issue in Separating was the matter with his
wife, Joan. In this certain story, her character had no particular growth. As seen later on towards
the end, when she admitted the reality of her tearful season that previous spring (804), she had
already mourned and prepared herself. She had had time to grieve, compose herself, and begin
anew. All of the turmoil of his leaving and her rejection had all happened beforehand, and now
she appeared ready, at least to everyone around her.
Throughout the Separating she seemed a bit cold, but in reality she was still inwardly
tender. Her pain was best seen when she answered Richard with, ―They‘re each individuals, you
know, not just some corporate obstacle to your freedom‖ (Gioia 801). The bitterness that
appeared absent in most circumstances, once again arose to the surface. She still held a grudge
against him, whether she believed so or not, and she did not want her children to be mistreated
as she felt she had been.
On that same page, she also strangely appeared happy that he was going, maybe as a relief
to her pain, or maybe as a way to get back at him. It could even have been another bitter sarcastic
Fiction Essays
34
answer towards him. One of her replies was: ―That leaves you the rest of the Saturday to answer
any questions, pack, and make your wonderful departure.‖
It is seen from the way she spoke, what she thought of her husband. Later on, when he was seen
crying at the table, her mind automatically jumped to the conclusion that he cried in order to get
his own way (804). He had wanted to tell the children all together and not individually as she had
thought best.
When they speak about it later in their bedroom, the reader sees for the first time that it
was indeed Richard, and not Joan, who wanted to call off the marriage. She was upset with him
because he had made it look as if she were the one kicking him out instead of him choosing to
leave. MORE
There were vast amounts of turmoil in this. She was ready for him to go, prepared to take
care of her children and of herself, and yet he was suddenly faltering.
The next battle was at the root of his heart. His children were the reasons for his major
heartache. ―Her plan turned one hurdle for him into four—‖ wrote Updike, ―four knife-sharp
walls, each with a sheer blind drop on the other side‖ (Gioia 801). This description lays out an
image of immense pain, cutting, breaking, and tearing apart. This ordeal was one of the hardest
parts, the whole point of the story. The children‘s reactions were key to everything. How they
reacted set how the father thus changed. Each and every child reacted a whole different way; each
having a very different pain than the rest.
Judith was the first Richard and Joan had planned on telling, but both of the youngest,
John and Margaret, heard it before anyone else. So when Judith did hear the news, instead of
exploding into tears or emotion, as one would expect of a young woman in pain, she hid
everything. She started a smoke and pretended to be nonchalant. William V. Arnold wrote in his
book, When Your Parents Divorce, that any child, no matter the age, falls under three categories
when their parents get divorced. A child is either filled with a variety of anger, sadness, or joy
(20). Though Judith appeared to be unmoved or even carefree about her parent‘s impending
divorce, this was not the case. She was apathetic to the eye; but only to the eye.
―Judith, imitating her mother‘s factual tone, but in her youth off-key, too cool, said…‖ (Gioia
803). She pretended not to be bothered by the fact her parents were separating. But as Arnold
wrote, this can be one of the most dangerous ways a child can act. She was in danger of closing
off. By not sharing her feelings, she was trying to close off the pain, and through that, close off
Fiction Essays
35
those inflicting it: her parents. This could start a chain of events, leading her to even reject more
than just her family (Arnold 21).
John, acting on the opposite side of his older sister, burst into a fit of anger. He reacted
with mindless rage and with exaggerated hostility. He did not break plates or throw silverware,
but the stress was too much for him. He cracked into pieces, throwing a temper tantrum, his
personality switching to the exact opposite of he usually was. He began yelling, crying, shoving
broken cigarettes and napkins into his mouth. He lit matches and held them close to his mother‘s
face (Gioia 803), joking in a strange off-like manner. All of these things were not a norm for him.
On the contrary, they were scarily opposite. Updike wrote, ―…being ‗good‘ had been his way of
setting himself apart‖ (Gioia 803).
Later that night, John told Richard that there was more than just the divorce that was
bothering him, but that school was dragging him down as well. It was written by Lee Salk that
―Parents are often so preoccupied with their own feelings during this difficult time that they
appear insensitive to the needs of their children‖ (60). This was exactly what happened during
this, and Richard knew it. He had been so preoccupied with his own pains and problems that he
had forgotten to pay attention to those close details; to the problems of his children.
Margaret‘s case was a bit different than the others. She was very quiet and reserved, hardly even
mentioned in the story, besides to point out her pudginess. Perhaps the reason for her exclusion
was because she was the youngest of them all, and she was not able to truly understand what was
going on. Her character did not play a large role in Richard‘s evolvement, though that is not
saying she did not have an effect. But the story goes no deeper into the qualms of her heart.
Finally, there was Richard Jr. who was the last to hear about his parents‘ separation. The entire
time Richard shook and quivered at the thought of telling him; he was afraid how his son would
react. And ―Dickie,‖ as Richard Jr. was nicknamed for short, did not let him down. His reaction
was the worst of all. He went into shock. The pain was not evident on his face, but it was heard
and felt in the silence, tearing at Richard‘s heart. This reaction caused the most change in
Richard. He saw what pain he was causing in his children.
The last and final battle that Richard was having was with himself. He was undecided in
everything that he had thought himself standing firmly in. From the very beginning he was
constantly taking steps back, moving forward a bit, and then taking another jump back.
Fiction Essays
36
He worked around the house, trying to fix things that were broken, making up for the guilt he
felt. Siobhain Cullen wrote about Richard‘s previous work in the kitchen as being ―something
which was meant to refresh and renew but which only resulted in revealing flaws and un-sealable
fractures…‖ (1). Just as before, when he tried to remodel the kitchen, and in a way a reflection of
him trying to remodel his own marriage, he was now trying to remodel his life, making up for his
wrong.
He was somewhat afraid to leave, no longer being the head of his own household.
Everything that had seemed so easy was catching up with him, but now it was as difficult as can
be. He was in pain, so much so that his tears ran uncontrollably in front of his family.
When walking with John (804), he tried to make up with him, and in the process found that
through the course of their deciding separation, he had neglected his children. This was another
pounding point for him.
―Again and again, key details reinforce Maple‘s inner sense of inadequacy, failure, and dread‖
(Searles 2). He could not escape these feelings and ideas.
There was even confusing thoughts about his wife. She was organized and calculating
(Gioia 801). Then later, as they sat at the table, explaining to the children, he said that she ―talked
to him (John), reasoning—a fountain of reason…‖ (803). Then something changed just about
halfway through the story, after most of the children had already found out. His outlook and
perspective quivered. As they lay in bed, reviewing the day, he gave her a hug (805). He spoke
very kind words to her, and then felt guilty, because he then realized that he did not feel
separated from her. Then finally, at the end, ―when she stood, an inexplicable light—the
moon?—outlined her body through the nightie‖ (807). How he described her changes, just as his
outlook on his children and on his own life changed.
At the night‘s end, as he sat next to Dickie, before they went to bed, he told him, ―I love
you so much, I never knew how much until now‖ (807). Only moments later, Dickie kissed him
and asked him the one shaking yet quick question, ―why?‖ Not because he wanted to know why
he loved him did he ask this, but he wanted to know why this was happening. Why was their
family being separated? That was the question that the whole story was about. The whole tale
came down to this one point. Richard worked his way through his emotions and through his
mind to hear this question because he was searching for it himself.
Fiction Essays
37
All of these things led him to find that everything he was basing his life on was shaky. He
had no solid ground. He was questioning his decisions on his wife, questioning his decision for
his children, and he was definitely questioning himself and everything he did through the whole
story. This is a tale of a man torn apart. In the beginning he could make no decisions and was a
bit torn, and in the end, he could make no decisions and was torn completely in half. There was
no progress; he worsened. It only got harder when he thought it would get easier. But he found
out that life was not as it had seemed. Instead of the picture perfect he imagined afterwards, the
whole event sent him into an unforeseen pit of confusion and doubt. Not knowing his decision
at the end, whether he continued in his marriage, or in deed separated from them makes it hard
to see where this journey led him. But from what we saw, he finally took in what was around him,
and fully appreciated it.
Works-Cited
Arnold, William V. When Your Parents Divorce. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster
Press, 1980. Print.
Cullen, Siobhain M. ―John Updike Short Stories-‗Separating.‘‖ BellaOnline. Minerva WebWorks
LLC. 2009. Web. 26 October 2009.
Gioia, Dana, and Gwynn, R.S. The Art of the Short Story: 52 Great Authors, Their Best Short
Fiction, and Their Insights on Writing. New York: Longman, 2006. Print.
Salk, Lee. What Every Child Would Like Parents to Know About Divorce. Anderson, Indiana
Warner Books, 1978. Print.
Searles, George J. ―John Updike (B.1932).‖ GeorgeTown. n.d. Web. 26 October 2009.
Fiction Essays
38
8 Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?
Jessica Wieneman
Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? is a short story inspired by a real life incident
involving a young teen and a serial killer in Arizona. (Joyce) The author Joyce Carol Oates
enjoyed taking established works of literature and giving them her own twist. (Oxford 638) Thus,
after reading an article in Time Magazine about Charles Schmid, the famous serial killer in
Arizona, she took that account and made a short story out of it. (Mullins 1)
Charles Schmid, the man who inspired the character Arnold Friend, was also known as
―The Pied Piper of Tucson.‖ (Mullins 1) He was known for getting girls to trust him, then letting
them go. (Mullins 1) Before he was caught, he managed to murder three women. (Mullins 3)
Arnold Friend represents Charles Schmid in several ways, namely by his appearance, attitude, and
seduction.
Charles Schmid was reported as having a peculiar appearance, putting forth a lot of effort
toward his appearance. He would want to look good, since his greatest thrill was pursuing
women. First of all, he dyed his hair black. In the same way, the story says that Arnold ―had
shaggy black hair that looked crazy enough to be a wig.‖ (Short 370) This suggests that Arnold‘s
hair was either dyed or truly a wig. Either way, Arnold had intentionally made his hair black.
As well as dying his hair black, Schmid was also known for wearing makeup. (Mullins 4)
Likewise, Arnold ―grinned so broadly his eyes became slits and she saw how thick the lashes
were, thick and black as if painted with black tar-like material.‖ (Short 369) Joyce Carol Oates
creates an image that perhaps Arnold was indeed wearing makeup.
According to a study by Radford University, Charles Schmid was either 5‘3‖ or 5‘4‖.
(Mullins 3) Apparently he was not content at that height, because he was found to stuff rags and
cans in his boots to make himself taller. (Mullins 4) In the story, Connie spoke of Arnold saying
that she ―liked the way he dressed, which was the way all of them dressed: tight faded jeans
stuffed into black, scuffed boots, a belt that pulled his waist in and showed how lean he was, and
a white pull-over shirt that showed the hard small muscles of his arms and shoulders.‖ (Short
366) Later on in the story, Connie saw that ―one of his boots was at a strange angle, as if his foot
Fiction Essays
39
wasn‘t in it. Evidently his feet did not go all the way down; the boots must have been stuffed
with something so that he would seem taller.‖ (Short 372-73)
Arnold Friend not only parallels Charles Schmid by way of appearance, but also in his
attitude. Schmid was extremely arrogant. When he was in prison, he walked around like he was
royalty, like he was superior to the other prisoners. (Mullins 3) This eventually led to getting
stabbed over twenty times by fellow prisoners and dying a week later from it. (Mullins 3) Arnold
also has an arrogance about him.
The first thing Arnold did when he saw Connie for what Connie assumed was the first
time, was say, ―Gonna get you, baby.‖ (Short 362) He had no doubt in his mind that he could
charm Connie. He was going to get her, and he knew it would not take too much persuasion.
Afterward, at Connie‘s house when she is threatening to call the police, Arnold says, ―Don‘t you
know who I am?‖ (Short 373) He speaks as if everyone should know who he is because he is
that awesome.
He soon after proceeded to say, ―But if you don‘t come out we‘re gonna wait till your
people come home and then they‘re all going to get it.‖ (Short 373) This statement is completely
bigheaded, used to intimidate Connie and prove that he has the power to do awful things to her
family. Furthermore, he says, ―We ain‘t leaving until you come with us.‖ (Short 370) He is
adamant about Connie doing as he pleases, so she might as well just go.
Lastly, Arnold Friend encompasses the personality of Charles Schmid by seduction.
Charles Schmid was not even considered physically attractive, but somehow had no trouble
getting girls to be with him. (Mullins 4) Arnold Friend appears to be the same way. Arnold used
no force on Connie; however she eventually gave in and went out of her house to meet him. The
man simply had a way with words, a way of tempting. He says several things in an attempt to win
Connie.
One of the first things he says once he arrived at her house was, ―You‘re cute.‖ (Short
365) It seemed to be random, not a natural part of the conversation that was going on, seeing as
they were talking about Arnold‘s car. It was obviously an element of his seduction. When
introducing himself, he says, ―I‘m Arnold Friend and that‘s my real name, and I‘m going to be
your friend, honey.‖ (Short 366) He is boldly proclaiming that she will be his friend, whether she
likes it or not. Also, he adds the word ―honey,‖ a term of endearment used to butter Connie up,
no doubt.
Fiction Essays
40
Arnold said a lot of things in order to get Connie to come out to him. He seductively
said, ―I know your name and all about you, such a pretty girl.‖ (Short 367) So, now he has called
her cute, honey, and pretty. He sure is laying it on thick. He also said, ―Connie, don‘t fool
around with me. I mean, I mean, don‘t fool around. (Short 370) He means for Connie just to
come out already, stop debating, and go be physically involved with him. He even tells Connie,
―I‘m your date. You‘re my lover. You don‘t know what that is but you will.‖ This would tempt
Connie to test her pure boundaries.
Connie even had an idea of what Arnold was doing. She thought that his nose, long and
hawk-like, was sniffling as if she were a treat he was going to gobble up and it was all a joke. She
compared him to a hawk, which is an animal that seeks out and captures its prey in order to eat it
up. She knew this and said it was a joke, yet she still bought into it.
Later on in the story, it says that ―she recognized most things about him, that slippery
friendly smile of his, that sleepy dreamy smile that all the boys used to get across ideas they didn‘t
want to put into words.‖ (Short 368) She was aware of his intentions. She knew what he was
aiming at, and still she allowed him to speak enthralling words to her.
Arnold was a brilliantly seductive man with the ability to sway women without any
physical attractiveness. He was so exceptional, that Connie ―had an idea that he had driven up
the driveway all right but had come from nowhere before that and belonged nowhere and that
everything about him was only half real.‖ (Short 370) Connie was driven to get into the car and
drive away with Arnold, not only because he said so, but because he gave her the feeling that she
had no choice.
Through Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? Joyce Carol Oates portrays a
story similar to Charles Schmid‘s story, but of course, it has her own markings on it. Schmid‘s
life made for great material for Oates. Her writings tend to circulate around violence and sex.
The violence within her writings shows the characters‘ struggles to define themselves against their
oppressive circumstances. (Bloomsbury 869) Arnold may have been oppressive toward Connie,
but he remained to have some appeal in Connie‘s eyes. Otherwise, she would not have crossed
the threshold that was her front door, and gone to him. For all she knew, he could plan on
taking her life, and she chose her fate.
In conclusion, Joyce Carol Oates made a spectacular parallelism between the two men.
Arnold Friend embodies the same qualities as Charles Schmid, namely appearance, attitude, and
Fiction Essays
41
the act of alluring. They represent men who know how to get what they want. The women they
swayed fell right into their hands. They may have even been aware that they were putting
themselves in a dangerous position, but that is the position they chose.
Works Cited
Joyce Carol Oates: On Bob Dylan. Randy Souther, 23 Sept. 2005. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.
Mullins, Jaclyn; Brown, Shayna; Preston, Quentin. Charles Howard Schmid, Jr. Radford
University/Department of Psychology, 2007. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.
Oxford companion to women's writing in the United States. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.
Short story 30 masterpieces. New York: St. Martin's, 1992. Print.
The Bloomsbury Guide to Women's Literature. New York: Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992.
Print.
Fiction Essays
9
42
Omelas
Jimmy Woods
After reading this short story one must analyze it in depth to figure out the message of
the author to the audience. The story that will be analyzed is ―The Ones Who Walk away from
Omelas‖ which was written by Ursula K. Le Guin. In this story one will see that the author is
trying to reach out to her audience to show the flaws of their western society and religion
through the town of Omelas and the suffering Child.
To Show how the views of society are in the story one should look at the author‘s
background. Ursula K. Le Guin‘s father, Alfred Kroeber, was a very important and respected
anthropologist (Gioia 530). This part of Ursula‘s background maybe important because this
familiarity in anthropology is seen in this work while she expresses humanistic views. She is
analyzing the humanity, in which anthropologists study society. According to, ―the Art of the
Short Story,‖
Bringing a social scientist‘s eye and a feminist‘s sensibility to the task, Le Guin has
employed this notably speculative genre to critique contemporary civilization. She has
been especially concerned with issues of social justice and equity, whether between
classes, genders, or races. In her novels and short stories—like ―the Ones Who Walk
Away from Omelas‖—she creates complex imaginary civilizations, envisioned with
anthropological authority, and her aim has been less to imagine alien cultures than to
explore humanity (Gioia 531).
Her main audience is focused on young adults, and she tends to write about feminist issues,
and examines societies and criticizes them (Britannica Inc). Ursula K. Le Guin likes to write
stories about today‘s society to express her views on how the western society is flawed. The
short story seems to be based on the United States‘ society, and she criticizes the western ways of
America.
To examine the author‘s views on the western society one must look in depth of the
motivation of the story. This story is based on the quote form William James‘ work ―The Moral
Philosopher and the Moral life,‖ and Ursula states ―If the Hypothesis were offered us of world in
which…Utopia should all be out done, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple
Fiction Essays
43
condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torment.
How hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a
bargain? (Le Guin 1449)‖ (Flint). This is the main theme of the story and this theme represents
the western society. Gioia presents that Ursula states ―the dilemma of the American conscience
can hardly be better stated (536). The United States has the false imagery that the streets are
paved with gold and that there is a rich and prosperous society. The United States has the
ideology that one must compete to succeed in any way is possible. The United States benefits
when the third world countries suffer and the people do not care that these children are
suffering.
The United States of America is a place where people try to find paradise or ―utopia‖.
This paradise can be either obtained by the Christian view that one died for the salvation of all or
this view could be secular on everyone is for themselves if one suffers while the others prevail
then that is just how life will be. According to Jerre Collins the author of ―Leaving Omelas:
Questions of faith and understanding,‖ the story is the criticism of the American society and its
politics. ―Her story is about a society‘s use of a scapegoat, and pharmakar, to keep the rest of the
society happy; and the dilemma of the American conscience seems to be twofold: we cannot
renounce the exploitation of others that makes possible our high standard of living, nor can we
renounce the scapegoat motif that justifies our comfortable life‖ (Collins 1). The American
society is presented in the detailed description of the Utopian City and this is seen in the structure
of the story.
While reading the short story one may notice something very interesting about how the
author writes her story. When one normally reads a story the author is the one giving the
audience the exact material to imagine for the story, however, in this short story, Ursula lets the
audience decide what to imagine. An example of this in the story is ―In the middle category,
however—that of the unnecessary but undestructive, that of comfort, luxury, exuberance, etc.—
they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of
marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuel-less power, a cure for the
common cold. Or they could have none of that: it doesn‘t matter. As you like it‖ (The Ones
Who Walk Away from Omelas). She does give the audience clues to what to imagine, but then
she asks the audience to put themselves in the story, and to imagine things which they think
would fit in good with the town. So the reader my see themselves in this wonderful utopian
Fiction Essays
44
town. The audience is young American adults so one would put their society‘s views and ethics
in the story. Towards the end the dramatic criticism of the story would have an affect on the
hearts of these young American adults. What is interesting is that the majority of the story
consists of the description of this perfect utopian town which is described as a beautiful town,
and to the people of that town there is no other known area, but the darkness.
The Utopian town of Omelas had green watery meadows that surrounded the city, many
gardens, and beautiful snow topped mountains that bordered the city. The city seemed perfect
just like a picture of heaven. Besides the scenery there were many happy people who have
glorious families. The American society is viewed as having glorious happy families. A great
example of this from an American aspect are the American TV shows ―Leave it to Beaver,‖ and
―The Brady Bunch‖ which are shows that represent the ―great‖ American family life. In Omelas
there are many beautiful horses that had braided manes of gold, silver, and green which America
is known for its beautiful landscape. The music floated all over the city through the wind. The
people of the land are living a very good life without having any troubles. This Utopian society
seems to be a great society that does not have any problems or sins affecting the land, but there is
a secret to this town of no pain, and the secret is that there really is pain and suffering in the
town, but it is just hidden. Not everyone is affected, matter of fact, only one person is affected,
and that is a small child.
This small child would be either male or female, it does not matter to the author because
there is a bigger picture, that has to deal with this child and that is that the child suffers so the
people of Omelas may have a Utopian town. The child is in pain, in the dark, does not see the
sun and the child once knew a time of not suffering, but was in that place by the town just so that
the town would have a Utopian Society. The child is a representation of the third world
countries that suffer. Further in the story one sees that the people know of the child‘s suffering,
and did not care but in the end there was a change. The people of the town walked away from
the town, but the child was still there and not everyone left. Third world countries do not
complete with the United States, and the people of the states knows this. The people of the
states knows how children are suffering but they either live their lives without any problems, and
the ones that do have the problems end up gong their own way in life but end up not helping the
suffering people, or the suffering child of Omelas. According to Melissa Lyons the author of
―Moral Issues‖ the child is in a cellar where it does not eat any nutrition but only eats corn meal
Fiction Essays
45
and grease, the child did have water, but it was nude, in a very dirty situation where is was
surrounded by its own bodily waste. The child also could not speak because of its neglect form
the entire Utopian town so the child went back to a primitive wild nature of man (5, and 6).
Also in the story of ―The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas‖ it critqizes the western
religion. Some scholars that have read this story has fit the child in to a religious role of
Christianity, and determined that the child was a representation of the communities Scapegoat.
Since this view of a person suffering for others is hideous in the story, one must see that the
author is critiquing the western religion. According to ―Webster Illustrated Contemporary
Dictionary,‖ a scapegoat could be ―In the Bible, the goat upon whose head Aaron symbolically
laid the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement, after which it was lead away into the
wilderness…. Any person bearing blame for the misdeeds of others‖ (652). This is very similar to
the western concept of the Christian savior. The people are known for their misdeeds and the
child suffers so that the community can be clean and the people do not have to pay for their
actions.
Looking more in-depth with the Scapegoat theme one can relate the story to the United
States‘ Christian ideology by seeing the parallels of the child to Jesus (Collins 6). Jesus‘ purpose
was to be the Ultimate scapegoat for all the people of the world. Jesus suffered torment, ridicule
and crucifixion to save a people who caused death to themselves. Jesus died so that one day
those how believe in him will live in the ultimate utopia which is in Heaven with God. If Jesus
would not have suffered his torment then the people of the world would still be under the law
and the punishment of sin which was started at the fall of man. Also like the Child, Jesus was a
sacrifice of innocence. Jesus did nothing to deserve his punishment, and like him the child did
not deserve this treatment and was the most innocent person in the town that was just chosen by
some unknown being. The child in the story was the savior of the people of Omelas and some
of those people were disgusted by the sight of such an innocence that suffers torment that bares
the happiness of all who live in Omelas.
According to Michelle Flint, the author of ―The Scapegoat in the Ones who Walk Away
from Omelas,‖ he raises up the question ―Why is the destruction of this child so crucial to the
happiness of the people of Omelas, is the life of a human being a fair price for Utopia, and is it
any less immoral to walk away‖ (Flint). Even though this child is being mistreated, this child is
the preventer of other people pain. According to Flint the child of this short story of protest is
Fiction Essays
46
the hero of the story, but the hero is a very weak character (Flint). However one may argue that
the child is the strongest character because the child has to deal with a great amount of pain and
torment, while everyone else does not. Looking at the other short stories form Ursula Le Guin,
her heroes are very good characters but they normally are lonely and isolated people (Flint). The
child is a very good representative of this because the child is not a person who deserves the
punishment and is isolated in the small cellar where it deals with its torment so the Utopian
society could survive.
The short story about the town of Omelas is a great story that critiques the morals of
humanity, and the western of the United States culture both through its society and religion. The
United States is one of the richest nations in the world also prospers while others suffer like the
third world countries suffer. Also the story fits well with United States‘ Christian religious society
as the child being similar to the Christian savior Jesus Christ. From looking at this story one
must question their morals and values to see if they could truly live with the fact of living a good
life while others in the third world countries suffer.
Works Cited
Collins, Jerre. ―Leaving Omelas: Questions of Faith and Understanding.‖ ―Studies in Short
Fiction,‖ Vol. 27, no 4, Fall, 1990, pp. 525-35.
Flint, Michelle ―The Scapegoat in the Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.‖ 2005, 20 October
2009.http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/15427/the_scapegoat_in_ones_who_w
alk.html?cat=4.
Gioia, Dana, R.S. Gwynn. The Art of the Short Story. New York: Pearson longman, 2006.
Lyons, Melissa. ―Moral Issues.‖ 1999, 20 October 2009. www.msu.edu.
Thripp, Richard X. ―Critical Analysis: ‗The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.‖ 2008, 20
October 2009. http://richardxthripp.thripp.com/critical-analysis-omelas-126.
―Ursula Le Guin Biography.‖ Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 2009. 21 October 2009.
http://www.biography.com/articles/Ursula-Le-Guin-9377730.
―Webster Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary.‖ Ed. Sidney I. Landau. Garden City, NewYork:
Doubleday, 1982.
Fiction Essays
10
47
Gimpel the Fool
Jimi Raffety
There are a variety of different conclusions that one can reach in interpreting the story of
Gimpel the Fool. The story draws its roots from the deep Yiddish background of the author, Isaac
Bashevis Singer, and it deals with the traditional ―fool‖ archetype dealt with so often in the
culture. The very archetype is plagued with irony, as the fool is typically seen as coming out on
top of all of the others in the story, making them seem as the fool rather than the ―fool‖ himself.
Gimpel the Fool follows the archetype well. In some instances, the idea of this particular archetype
can be frustrating, as the typical reader may want the main character to get the revenge he
deserves. This is rarely the case, as in doing so, it would make the main character the fool that
everyone else believes him to be. The main theme behind the story of Gimpel is that even
though everyone viewed him as a fool, they ended up being the ones who were truly foolish.
Isaac Bashevis Singer was born in a Jewish village in Poland in 1904, while it was still part
of Russia. He comes from a long line of rabbis, and his father intended to send him to the
Warsaw Rabbinical Seminary to continue this tradition. He left the school in order to proofread
for a Yiddish literary magazine, and to translate foreign novels into Yiddish.
Singer wrote his first novel, Satan in Goray in 1935. He left his wife and son to settle in
New York City, and shortly divorced and remarried. When he came to America in 1935, he
followed in the footsteps of his brother, Joshua Israel Singer. He joined the Jewish Forward, a
Manhattan based Yiddish newspaper. Some of his stories and novels were serialized in the
Forward. He eventually turned to writing fiction, including long stories and short stories. His
short stories are typically more acclaimed than the longer ones. ―His work deals mostly with the
exotic heritage of Polish Jews, their traditional faith and folkways, their daily village life, their
mysticism, their colorful personal relationships, their religious fanaticism, and their sexuality
(Hart).‖
In 1978, Singer received the Nobel Prize. He was the first and only Yiddish writer to do
so. His novels tend to be realistic, traditional narratives. His stories are characterized by
folkatlae, psychology, supernatural occurrences, but otherwise realism. His subject matter is
always Jewish.
Fiction Essays
48
There is a lot of complexity in the story of Gimpel the Fool. The archetype of Gimpel
himself is that of the traditional Yiddish schiemiel. The schiemiel is the ―fool‖ archetype. Even
though he is plagued with misfortune, he ultimately wins out in some way and gains an
understanding that others that are not in his situation can never hope to grasp. This is the case
with Gimpel. Even though he is the butt of everyone‘s jokes, he maintains his priorities, and
holds to his convictions. In the end, he resolves to become a wandering holy man, and even
though he has been deceived and lied to his whole life, which he was quite aware of, he knows
that in the next life, there will be no one who will deceive him ever again. ―In the Yiddish joke,
the schlemiel is dogged by an ill luck, somehow of his own making. What the jokes celebrate- for
all their pratfall and farce- are victories of common sense. Life‘s human comedy outstrips the
illusion of man-made follies (Pinsker).‖ ―Because Gimpel takes the spirit of evil seriously, he is
able to reject it and remove himself from a cycle of retribution which would destroy his essential
integrity. In the end, he alone among the villagers refuses to fool himself (Angus).‖
Gimpel the fool is a man who does not consider himself a fool at all. Others do, as he is
quite easy to take advantage of, and everyone in his village does almost any chance they get.
When he was young, he once skipped school because the other kids told him that the rabbi‘s wife
was going to give birth, even though she did not even look pregnant. His reason for believing
was because he never looked at her belly, so how should he know? He believed everyone who
pranked him, as ―everything is possible,‖ as is written in the Wisdom of the Fathers.
Gimpel was an orphan raised by his grandfather, who died early on, and was taken in by a
baker. Everyone tried to fool him while he was living with the baker. Even with as much as he
was made fun of, he never chose to fight back. He was not a weakling and could have fought
back, but chose not to.
The rabbi once told him ―It is written, beter to be a fool al your days than for one hour to
be evil. You are not a fool. They are the fools. For he who causes his neighbor to feel shame
loses Paradise himself.‖ Regardless, the rabbi‘s own daughter played a prank on him.
Gimpel later gets tricked into marrying a divorced woman. He had suspicions the whole
time, but decided to go ahead with it anyway. Her name was Elka, and she was an orphan like
Gimpel.
Fiction Essays
49
Four months into their marriage, Elka gave birth to a son. She tried to tell him that it was
his son, but he didn‘t believe her at first. He came to love the child, and didn‘t dislike her, either,
even though she yelled and cursed at him.
One day, Gimpel came home to find a man laying in bed with his wife while they were
sleeping, and although he was angered, he decided not to do anything in fear of waking the child.
He went to the rabbi for advice, and the rest of the town raised a commotion. Elka denied the
accusation. The rabbi told Gimpel that he must divorce her.
Gimel began to miss Elka and the child, as he was forced to live apart from them. He
went to the rabbi to tell him that he had made a mistake. Elka gave birth to a girl, and at this
point, he vowed to believe everything that he was told.
The rabbi had written to some other important scholars, and one of them had found
some obscure rule that stated that Gimpel could go back to his wife. As he returned home,
Gimpel found her in bed with the baker‘s apprentice. Elka tricked him again, and accused him of
being crazy and delusional. He continued to live with her.
After twenty years of being married to her, Elka fell ill, and before she died, she
confessed that none of the children were his, and that she had deceived him. At night, the Spirit
of Evil came to Gimpel, and told him to take revenge upon the whole town by urinating in the
bread dough. He does, but is also visited by Elka, presumable from Hell. She persuades him to
undo the deed, which he obeys.
He goes home, and gathers his wealth to divide amongst Elka‘s children. He then leaves
the village. He wanders and becomes very old, and comes to believe that there are actually no
lies at all. He lives his life wandering and telling stories to children. He also says that he world is
no doubt an imaginary world, and that when he goes on to the next world, it will be a place not
even he can be deceived.
As I read Gimpel the Fool, I made the connection between the character of Gimpel and
that of Hosea. Both marry women who are unfaithful to them. The difference between the two
is that God is speaking directly to Hosea and makes the parallel between his wife‘s adultery and
the adultery of Israel to the Lord. It seems that Gimpel is startlingly similar to Hosea, and
considering Singer was Yiddish, this is surely intentional.
In Hosea, God tells him to take a wife who was unfaithful, and in Gimpel the Fool, his
fellow villagers convince him to marry Elka. There are a lot of implications that can be drawn
Fiction Essays
50
from this. What exactly is Singer trying to say about God in this situation? It can be interpreted
that Singer sees God as like the villagers. The villagers were mean, and picked on Gimpel
constantly. Is this Singer‘s view of God? I am unsure, but it is quite disturbing if this is the
sense. Gimpel plays the fool all throughout the story, and accepts it. He travels as a holy man in
the end, and tells stories to little kids. He comes to believe that there is no such thing as lies, and
that the world in which we live is not reality at all. In the life after this, he will be in a place that
not even he will be able to be lied to.
Ezra Schwartz, a secular Israeli Jew made an animation of the short story. He set
animation and music to the narration of the story in Yiddish. It is not merely an illustration of
the story, but in a sense, a video/audio commentary on the work itself. Schwartz seemed to have
few qualms about animating things to his own interpretation, be it an exaggeration of certain
characters to make a point or the strange flow of the transitions. One of the transitions in
particular is when Gimpel marries Elka, and they partake of a glass of wine together. After Elka
drinks, her body twists and whirls, becoming liquid-like, swirling back into the glass. The glass
transitions into that of Gimpel stomping on that same glass. Not only does it have some cultural
relevance, it also says something of Schwartz‘ interpretation. He even goes so far as to entirely
drop the end of the story, completely altering the story even though it was not his intention.
―I was not happy with the ending, and yet did not want to change it. Thus I chose to end
the film with Gimpel‘s conflict unresolved, so that each viewer would have the chance to wonder
about Gimpel‘s choice, and maybe reflect about their own resolution (Schwartz).‖
Schwartz, by not including the ending, changes it greatly. He leaves it open for existential
interpretation. It is easy to be unhappy with this story. In the story of Hosea, it is almost certain
that Hosea was unhappy with the lot in life that he received. He was told by God to marry an
unfaithful woman, and go back to her when she did the inevitable. However, this only a small
fraction of the pain that God feels every time we sin against him. How can we even relate?
Hosea‘s example shows that even though we all sin against God and deserve death, God will
always come back to us. He will actively seek us. Hosea does the same in dealing with his wife,
and he must have surely seen the connection between he and his wife and God and Israel.
For a different perspective, how would Hosea‘s wife and the rest of Israel have seen the
character of Hosea? They surely would have seen him a fool for returning to his clearly
Fiction Essays
51
unfaithful wife. Hosea as we know him certainly is not, but the rest of Israel would not have
likely seen it this way.
Gimpel fits in with this archetype as well, although the ending is certainly different. He
marries the unfaithful woman, yet goes back to here every time that she cheats against him. He
loves her though she does not love him back. He goes to sin, but then redeems himself. He
becomes a holy man gives his wealth to the children whom were not even his. His sacrifice was
loving a woman that didn‘t love him back, and this is the same way that God loves us.
Arriving at a particular interpretation of Gimpel the Fool is a complex process. Even in rereading it, there are many things and subtle nuances that one may miss. The given examples in
comparison between Gimpel the Fool and the book of Hosea are not limited to the
aforementioned, as there are surely more. It seems that the story, as well as many others of the
schiemiel archetype, borrowed extensively from Hosea.
The main idea to draw from Gimpel the Fool is that even if people look down on you as a
fool, do not let your anger consume you. Chances are, they are most likely more foolish than
you, and don‘t let anyone make you into the fool that everyone assumes you to be. This is
certainly something that goes against human nature. When we are wronged, we feel the need for
retribution. Gimpel was able to control this need for retribution. He may have been a bit more
trusting than everyone else, but he certainly wasn‘t an idiot. He knew what was happening to him
most of the time, but he chose to be the better man anyway. This is a view on life that we should
try to examine ourselves.
Works Cited
―Great Modern European Short Stories.‖ 2009. Angus and Angus. Docstoc. 21 October 2009.
<http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3442894/GREAT-MODERN-EUROPEANSHORT-STORIES-Edited-by-Angus-Angus-GRADE>
Drabble, Margaret. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York, 1985.
Hart, James D. The Oxford Companion to American Literature. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York, 1995.
Pinkser, Sanford. The Schlemiel as Metaphor: Studies in Yiddish and American Jewish Fiction.
Southern Illinois University Press, Illinois, 1991.
Fiction Essays
52
―Gimpel the Fool (Isaac Bashevis Singer)- Animation by Ezra Schwartz.‖ 2009. Ezra Schwartz.
Jewish Journal.com. 21 October 2009.
<http://www.jewishjournal.com/video/article/video_gimpel_the_fool_isaac_bashevis_s
inger_animation_by_ezra_schwartz_2008/
Fiction Essays
53
11 Where Are You Going and Where Have You Been?
Julie Outlaw
Joyce Carol Oates is a realist who has no problem exposing the vultures of injustice,
violence, sex, and corruption that prey on the carnage of human life. Her stories show what life is
really like a few scratches below the flowery surface of what society has tried to cover up and
ignore. Her characters live lives in which their plight is to find themselves amid the chaos that
surrounds them (Birns 2349). Although Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? was based on
a 1966 Life magazine article of a young serial killer, it bleeds into real life when it shows the reality
of Connie‘s life and her struggle to know where she has come from and where she is going
(McMahan 1).
The life of an inner-city gangster is puzzling to the common person. They are
unconventional in every way with their baggie clothes, diamond-studded necklaces, cars with very
large tire rims and sound systems that could rival that of a concert hall. Despite all of the
expensive and luxurious purchases, most gang members live in the heart of poverty and choose a
life of crime to support their many habits. They make lots of money in a short amount of time
and then immediately spend it. Why is this so? Do they not understand that they are cutting their
legs off from underneath themselves? Look past the surface. Most inner-city gang members only
live to be eighteen to nineteen years old; they have no future (United States 1). Why bother
saving money for the future if that future is never going to happen? Their fathers have left their
mothers or were never present in the first place; they have no idea where they have come from.
There are no roots in their present life to connect them to their past or to tell them of their
heritage. The life of a gangster mirrors that of the life of fifteen-year-old Connie in Joyce Carol
Oates‘ story ―Where Are You Going? And Where Have You Been?.” Her non-existent relationship
with her family and her uncertain future give her no reason not to get in the car when Death pulls
into the driveway.
Connie‘s dysfunctional relationship with her is the first step across the cold linoleum
toward the screen-door-of-no-return. The story opens with Connie‘s mother telling her to stop
―gawking at herself,‖ (Oates 664). She sees the same behavior in Connie that she once had and
wants more for her daughter. In doing so, she creates a division between herself and her
Fiction Essays
54
daughter; metaphorically speaking, she is cutting Connie‘s roots. Connie‘s mother is ―cutting‖ off
an opportunity to talk to her daughter about how there will come a day when all of her looks will
fade, so she should plan for the future. Instead, Connie‘s mother picks and nags at her until
―Connie wished her mother was dead and she herself was dead and it was all over,‖ (Oates 664).
But what about Connie‘s father? Connie‘s relationship with her father- much like her
relationship with her mother- does not even exist; the story merely describes him as ―quiet and
bald,‖ (Oates 666). His role in Connie‘s life is to be the man who works all day, eats dinner, and
then goes to sleep; he is no more than a shadow in the background. He has shown no interest in
her decisions or made any effort to intervene in the fights between her and her mother (Oates
664). Like Adam in the garden, Connie‘s father has passed off his fatherly duty to take
responsibility for what goes on in his household (Genesis 3:12). The two people that were
supposed to give Connie identity -her mother and her father- failed to do so.
One of the most basic reasons gang members join a gang in the first place is to gain a
feeling of identity and family, even if that means regular beatings, stealing, or killing to be a part
of it (United States 7). They are searching for a place to belong and a place where people care
what happens to them; people that will protect them and look out for them. Connie is searching
for that place to belong and finds it in the company of her girlfriends she goes to the mall with
(Oates 664-5). These girls were the ones that understood her and shared in her common
experiences. Even Arnold Friend knew that one of the most appealing traits of a man is security
and the ability to protect. ―I‘ll have my arms around you so you won‘t need to try to get away and
I‘ll show you what love is like, what it does…‖ (Oates 673). When asked to spend time with her
family Connie said that going to a barbeque with them did not interest her, and yet she always
looked forward to hanging out with her girlfriends a couple of times a week (Oates 666). Connie
had little to nothing in common with her family, save that they all lived in the same house. The
fact that Connie did not have a close relationship with her parents and that her parents showed
no real interest in her life contributes to the fatal ending of the story.
Another step across the cold linoleum was Connie‘s parents‘ parenting failure. The two
most basic questions that any parent will ask their child before they go out and after they come in
are: ―Where are you going?‖ and ―Where have you been?‖ They let their child know that their
decisions have possible consequences beyond what they have anticipated. Neither question ever
passes over the lips of Connie‘s parents. They have failed to show their daughter that they care
Fiction Essays
55
about the places she has been and the places that she will go in the future. And so, when Arnold
friend rolls into the driveway the though of ―how am I going to explain this to my parents?‖ is
not a priority in her mind. If anything, it is something that encourages her to get into the car.
Connie‘s carelessness towards planning her future past tomorrow and her failure to aspire
to be anything but pretty was the third step towards Arnold Friend‘s gold jalopy. ―Connie knew
she was pretty and that was everything,‖ (Oates 664). There was no other thought that occupied
her mind other than the thought of how pretty she was, the places her looks could take her, the
things her looks could get her, and the boys that her looks could attract, ―Connie couldn‘t do a
thing, her mind was all filled with trashy daydreams,‖ (Oates 664). The first thought that went
through Connie‘s mind when Arnold Friend‘s car pulled into the driveway was not one of fear or
suspicion but how her hair looked (Oates 667). The thought that something bad might happen to
her was not even considered until it was too late to run away. Connie did not plan for her future;
she left that up to her sister, June, and almost considered it a fault: ―she was so plain and chunky
and steady that June had to hear her praised all the time by her mother and her mother‘s sisters.‖
June was the one that had a job and saved money for the future, and Connie was the one that
pranced around the house daydreaming. Connie pitied her sister for not living more in the
moment, but in the end, it was Connie who was pitied for having no future to keep her from
getting into the car.
Where are you going? Looking back at the life of the inner-city gang member, it is
apparent that there is little hope of college; little hope of a job that does not involve drugs, sex, or
thievery; and little hope of ever getting out of the city they live in. There is nothing that they are
looking forward to, so there is no disappointment when they get arrested or put in prison. That is
life to them. They do not care about their criminal record, because they are never going to apply
for a job that requires a background check. They do not care about skipping class or keeping
their grades up, because there is nothing for them after high school.
In the end, though, Connie‘s last motivation for pushing open the screen door was to
save what little reputation she had. Throughout the story it is apparent that Connie was not going
for all-out rebellion against her parents. If she was, then there would have been no reason for her
to act one way at home and then a different way out in public (Oates 665). At home, she made
sure that the way she was dressed was modest and nothing flashy. But as soon as she was out of
the house her childlike traits disappeared. Suddenly she was woman of her own domain. But why
Fiction Essays
56
go through the struggle of keeping a definitive line between the two worlds? The final straw that
breaks Connie was when Arnold Friend said, ―This is how it is, honey: you come out and we‘ll
drive away, have a nice ride. But if you don‘t come out we‘re gonna wait till your people come
home and then they‘re gonna get all upset,‖ (Oates 673).
The top three things that are most important to an inner-city gangster: One: reputation,
two: respect, three: reputation (United States 9). Their name is all that they have. They have no
past and they have no future; all that they are left with is protecting their here and now. They
(gang members) work to build a name for themselves- one of fear, respect, and power. It takes
lots of violence and vandalism to create such a name, but once that name is established it
becomes their identity and then there is little to keep up on, making life easier. Connie worked
hard to convince her mother that she was a good girl. She omitted important details of where she
had been the night before when her sister asked her where she had been. When her mother asked
about the Pettinger girl (most likely another one of Arnold‘s rape and murder victims, because he
named her as someone he knew [Oates 669]) Connie replied that the girl was nothing like her.
―… she (Connie) always drew thick, clear lines between her and such girls, and her mother was
simple and kindly enough to believe her. Her mother was so simple, Connie thought, that it was
maybe cruel to fool her so much,‖ (Oates 666).
Where are you going and where have you been? The two most basic questions that could
have given Connie reason not to get into the car with Arnold Friend were never asked. Her
estranged relationship with her parents took away her past; her sense of where she has been.
Much like the inner-city gangster, the fact that Connie does not know where she comes from
gives her little motivation to make a future plan gives her nothing to look forward to.
Works Cited
Birns, Margaret B., and Carl Brucker. Joyce Carol Oates. Vol. 4. Pasadena: Salem Press, 2004. Print.
Genesis. Life Application Study Bible (New International Version). Wheaton: Tyndale House,
Inc., 2005. Print.
McMahan, Day. "CASEBOOK Joyce Carol Oates." CASEBOOK Joyce Carol Oates's "Where Are
You Going, Where Have You Been”. Bergen Community College Homepage, 2005. Web. 21
Oct. 2009. <http://www.bergen.edu/las/oates_questions.htm>.
Oates, Joyce C. "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" 1970. Art of the Short Story.
New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. 664-75. Print.
Fiction Essays
57
United Sates of America. The Office of Alternative Education. Monitor/Gang Task Force. Gang
Information 06-07. By Christina M. Hammond. The Newark Public Schools, 2008. Web.
<www.nps.k12.nj.us/.../Gang%20Packet%20updated.doc>.
Fiction Essays
58
12 The Lady with the Pet Dog
Jonathan Banks
The Lady with the Pet Dog is about the complexity of life leaving no room for a notion such
as ―right,‖ ―wrong‖, and ―God,‖ leaving man to his to make his own ―meaning.‖ In the story,
religion and fate are viewed as oppressors of the two protagonists, and they are victims of
marriages that they just ―knew‖ were not really meant for them. They were convinced that
instead of trying to work out their own marriages with their true spouses, ―Fate‖ had somehow
made a mistake by not bringing Gurov and Anna together.
The only times God was mentioned was when His name was coming out of the mouths
of the characters, almost as if to merely pay lip service to the notion of ―god.‖ A better way of
putting it, perhaps, would be that the idea of God was merely spoken of sarcastically by the
author through the fears of Anna. In the scene after Anna and Gurov first had sex, Anna feels
extremely guilty, saying that what she had done was a terrible sin that God would punish her for.
However, by the end of the story, both of them come to the conclusion that they had been dealt
a bad hand by ―Fate‖ (notice how God is no longer an issue), and decide to go through with their
relationship. Another time fate was mentioned was during the scene when Anna was getting on a
train back to her home, but for the last time (or so she thought). She claimed that it was fate that
was bringing them apart because they should not have been together in the first place. This was
mainly her guilt talking though, considering that later on, they believed Fate was wrong and
stayed together after all.
In a scene where they were both sitting on a pier, looking at the steamboats going by
(page 139 in The Art of the Short Story), Fate was mentioned but not by name specifically. The line
was ―The monotonous muffled sound of the sea that rose from below spoke of the peace, the
eternal sleep awaiting us. So it rumbled below when there was no Yalta, no Oreanda here; so it
rumbles now, and it will rumble as indifferently and as hollowly when we are no more.‖ The
―eternal sleep‖ being mentioned was death, the ultimate Fate in the mind of the author. Terms
like ―indifferently‖ seem to imply a closed system where there is no God or meaning, only the
decisions that we make for ourselves. With this said, it is a rather curious notion to think that
there is really any such thing as ―fate‖ in a world like the one described. Perhaps, the characters
Fiction Essays
59
were merely paying lip service to the notion of Fate as well just to make their positions sound
more probable (that they were really suppose to be together).
Gurov‘s view on women was another interesting part of the story, and it is left unspoken
whether or not Gurov official changed his position about women by the end of the story
considering how he felt about Anna. In the beginning of the story, he was very prejudice of the
―inferior race‖ (as he called them) as a whole. He found women to be pathetic and unintelligent,
based on the fact that he had slept with so many of them and that they had given themselves to
him so easily, even while he was already married. His own act of adultery did not seem to cross
his mind. It was the easy acts of adultery perpetrated by the women that made him think that
women were as a whole pathetic. So the reader can already see Gurov‘s double-standard at play
here in the story. By the end of the story, though, he finds out that he truly loves Anna, and
decides that he cannot live without her.
In part IV of the story, Gurov is discovered to not really believe other men to only have
one life that they lived. He believed that everyone had two lives (―Judging others by what himself,
he did not believe what he saw, and always fancied that every man led his real, most interesting
life under cover of secrecy as under cover of night. The personal life of every individual is based
on secrecy, and perhaps it is partly for that reason that civilized man is so nervously anxious that
personal privacy should be respected.‖). He believed that the reason why ―respectable‖ people
needed privacy was because of a hidden and hypocritical lifestyle that they lived at night. To a
certain extent, it would seem that Mr. Gurov is correct, considering that mankind is contaminated
with something called a sinful nature, but this is not where Gurov is going with the idea. He
merely believes this because of what he does in his own ―private‖ time. It is almost as if Gurov is
looking for some kind of scapegoat or reason to keep on with the affair even though, deep down,
he knows it is wrong. On a broader note though, this seems to be a commentary on human life
that Chekhov was trying to make, and he makes these throughout the story (like on page 139
regarding the ―eternal sleep‖).
By the end of the story, the adulterous relationship reigns supreme with this passage:
―And it seemed as though in a little while the solution would be found, and then a new and
glorious life would begin; and it was clear to both of them that the end was still far off, and that
what was to be most complicated and difficult for them was only just beginning.‖ This is the
scene where Gurov and Anna decide to ―stick it to Fate‖ per se, and go on with the relationship
Fiction Essays
60
no matter how hard it would be. At this point, right and wrong are completely thrown out of the
window (interestingly, in this final scene, they are both standing next to a window). In this scene,
Anna is described as wearing Gurov favorite gray dress, a color that is repeated throughout the
story. Gray seems to be a color in the story that represents the idea of their being no black or
white in the world. When the two decide that their relationship is right, the gray is fleshed out in
their actions. In a scene from the movie Clear and Present Danger, one of the villains of the
story, in order to justify his behavior, repeatedly shouted at Jack (Harrison Ford‘s character),
―The world is gray!‖ This seems to be the train of thought that Chekhov is using to justify the
affair, as well as other ideas (prejudices towards women).
Complexity is an idea mentioned throughout the story, especially at the end. The color
gray is also used over and over, which seems to go along with this idea. The line, ―Every affair at
first seems a light and charming adventure inevitably grows into a whole problem of extreme
complexity, and in the end a painful situation is created,‖ is a foreboding as well as a defining
moment in the story. This is said at the very beginning of the story, before Anna and Gurov
become intimately acquainted. Complexity is also repeated at the very end when they embrace the
complexity, and treat it as ―a new and glorious life.‖
During the scene where Gurov goes to S___________ to find Anna after realizing he
cannot live without her, he finds out that she and her husband are in a theatre. The setting is a
very interesting choice, because it really goes in line with the theme of the double-life that, in the
opinion of Gurov, all people lead. As a matter of fact, later in the story, it is found out that
Gurov thinks that people‘s most interesting lives are lived in secret. This is actually played out in
this scene. Words such as horror, pale, frightened were use to describe certain emotions in the
scene. The more the scene built, Chekhov used musical words that increased in dramatics along
with the scene, giving the scene a much more intense feeling. How ironic it is that Gurov and
Anna meet again, but this time in a theatre! Or, perhaps, it is that Anna being found in a theatre
is more of an archetype of her situation. Gurov was the one that finally decided to make his
decision regarding their relationship, which was that he wants to be with her. He did not want to
live with a woman that he could not stand to be with, or even appreciate. It was in Anna that he
finally found his humanity and his respect for other women. However, on the other side of the
coin, Anna was still living the façade. She was in the theatre with the man of whom she thought
to be a ―flunkey,‖ and could not stand to be married to it seemed. According to the author, at
Fiction Essays
61
this moment in the story, she was the one that was lying to herself about her married life. So she
was living in the proverbial theatre. However, in the theatre was the orchestra. As she was
shocked by the appearance of Gurov, the chase began. As the chase kept moving and moving,
the violins and the flutes in the orchestra began to intensify in their sound, building to an ultimate
climax between Gurov and Anna. This was indicative of the ending of the story, when Gurov
and Anna would finally decide to be together despite the complex and painful state of the
relationship they were looking to have. This small scene was a mere foreshadow of things to
come later in the story. It seemed to act as some representative of everything that was leading up
to the end, when the two would finally come together. The more he went after her, the more
frightened or guilty she became, which was how their encounters every other time seemed to be.
Nature was an important element in the story as well. During the scene where Gurov and
Anna are watching the boats go by while sitting on the pier, Chekhov takes his time in going into
detail about the landscape that they were seeing. ―They walked and talked of the strange light on
the sea: the water was a soft, warm, lilac color, and there was a golden band of moonlight upon it.
They talked of how sultry it was after a hot day (Chekhov 137).‖ This was the description of the
scene. This was the first hint at the kind of relationship Gurov and Anna would have with one
another, or at the least the first hint of the nicer side of the relationship. The words lilac, soft, and
warm seem to hark back to Song of Songs, which is rather strange considering that they were not
married. This is not the scene that describes them having sex necessarily, but it still describes
their feelings for one another while employing naturalistic tones to get the point across. This
seems to be another example of the naturalism that is throughout the piece, and the almost
complete absence of a respectful tone for things having to do with God. Instead, the author tries
to emphasize the beauty in the world to describe the beauty of an impending relationship
(adulterous as it may be), to show that these two people were actually suppose to be together,
because otherwise, everything for them seems gray and out of focus, even filthy. Another small
moment of naturalism appears in the scene after the two of them had sex. Anna felt guilty while
Gurov was eating a watermelon. She was scared while he was irritated. It was at this moment
when Gurov started to get the old feelings of annoyance that he would usually get with women in
general, especially ones that he has affairs with.
In conclusion, the meaning the author was trying to convey in the story was that life‘s
complexity and man‘s secrets made the world too gray for any such ideas like ―Fate‖ or ―God‖ to
Fiction Essays
62
seem reasonable. Evidence of this interpretation lies all throughout the story with the uses of the
color gray, the fact that the color white was always mentioned whenever Anna was nearby (as if
to imply that Gurov was right in seeking out Anna even though he was already married), and the
fact that Fate was claimed to have made a mistake regarding Anna and Gurov, because they
became so madly in love with one another.
Fiction Essays
13
63
The Open Boat
Erin Klug
The Open Boat is a short story that is grounded in the worldview of naturalism.
Throughout the story there are a variety of elements that lead the reader to this conclusion.
Primarily, the worldview of naturalism can be seen through the four main characters: the
Correspondent, the Cook, the Captain and the Oiler.
Naturalism is a worldview that focuses on the idea that all that exists is what is here and
now. There is no real purpose to life and the universe runs based on chance. ―The term
naturalism describes a type of literature that attempts to apply scientific principles of objectivity
and detachment to its study of human beings‖ (Campbell). Stephen Crane, the author of The
Open Boat, said of nature and the universe:
When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important, and that she feels
she would not maim the universe by disposing of him, he at first wishes to throw bricks
at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples
(Campbell).
The only character in the short story whose thoughts we are made aware of are the
thoughts of the Correspondent. This is understandable because the story is based on a true story
and was written by a correspondent. Stephen Crane was on board the Commodore when it sank
New Year‘s Day in 1897. He had been called to be a Correspondent in the southwest and
Mexico and then was called to Cuba in 1896. This is when the fateful event occurred: ―The
sinking of the ship and his subsequent 50 hour struggle with the waves furnished the theme of
his best known short story, The Open Boat‖ (Hart).
We get a clear view of how ridiculous the situation appears to the correspondent through
his thoughts that are shared with the audience. While they are in the small dingy, he and one
other character are the only two who are able to row. This fact lends itself to naturalism because
of the four men present, the correspondent is the one who does not hold a job on the boat. It is
by chance that he is one of the two who is actually able to row. During the long expanses of time
that he is rowing he thinks a lot about their situation and the fact that he may not survive the
circumstances. The very first glance that the reader has into the mind of the correspondent is
Fiction Essays
64
telling, ―the correspondent, pulling at the other oar, watched the waves and wondered why he
was there‖ (Crane). He is looking for reason, for order, but in the end he finds none.
In a conversation that the correspondent has we see that he is less sure of their rescue
than others. When discussing the houses of refuge, another member of the crew is sure that
there will be someone there who will see them and send someone out to rescue them. The
correspondent is doubtful that this is the case. He believes that there are not usually people
residing in the houses of refuge that the cook is talking about. Yet the correspondent continues
to work harder than the more optimistic man to get them to safety even though he has less
confidence that they will be rescued.
At the same time, the correspondent still has a sense of hope. Therefore, he and the
other men all treat each part of their journey with respect. When the correspondent is changing
seats with others he does so with a great deal of carefulness so as to not tip the small boat. He is
very careful not to do anything that will turn over their boat and cut short any chances of survival
that he is hanging onto. In terms of naturalism, he is hoping that there is a chance that they will
live, though they have little if any reason to believe that they will live.
As we get close to the end of the story, it looks as though the correspondent may be the
only one who has trouble making it to safety. However, he ends up make it to shore while
another man dies. The correspondent cannot make sense of it all. One of the men was unfit; he
should have been the one to die. One of the men was injured; he should have been the one to
die. The correspondent, himself, was inexperienced; he should have been the one to die. What
should have been was not. These men all made it safely ashore while the strong and fit,
uninjured, and experienced one dies.
Throughout the story, the cook is the most optimistic of the four men. He is constantly
rambling on about how sure he is that there are people at the house that will see them. He also
continuously utters the phrase, ―funny they don‘t see us.‖ His optimism is apparent throughout
the story and he never seems to give up hope though he has a few moments when he wonders a
bit.
A conversation that the cook has tells us that the cook is much more optimistic of their
chances than the other men. One can find naturalism in this fact because the cook is doing very
little if anything to help the men to safety, yet he is the optimistic one. It would make sense that
Fiction Essays
65
the more optimistic a person was about their survival, the more likely they would be to work hard
to get them to safety.
Of the four men, the cook is the one whose situation is the most difficult to figure out.
He is described as ―fat‖ and ―untidily dressed.‖ He also never takes a turn rowing the boat, even
though there seems to be nothing wrong with him. He is also the only one of the four men who
is wearing a life jacket. This fact lends itself to naturalism as it is by ―chance‖ that the cook
happens to be the only one in a lifejacket.
As we the men embark on their final moments in the sea the cook is wearing the life
jacket and this helps him as he fights though the waves desperately seeking the shore. He makes
it to shore despite his unfit self. Though he did very little to help the men make it to shore, he
survives.
The Captain is the only one of the four characters who is injured. This is an ironic twist
of fate that presents naturalism – it is by chance that the captain is injured and cannot physically
help the men. The one man in the boat who wants desperately to lead the men to safety is
unable to physically do anything, ―Having lost his ship, the captain is more forlorn and dejected
than the other characters, but he feels that it is his duty to guide the men to safety‖ (Answers).
The story says that there was ―mourning‖ in his voice. He has lost the one thing that he was
given to protect and guide to safety.
Now he must take the men safely ashore. Though his voice is dreary his words are not.
He continuously gives words of encouragement. He also gives instructions and the men respect
him enough to ask for directions when they are not sure what to do next. Throughout almost all
of the story the captains words are affirmative of their survival, though he does have one slip. At
one point in the story his words seem to express that his optimism has been false. He asks a
question waiting for a response from the three other men. When they do not answer he seems to
realize that he needs reinstate his optimism. He knows that the men in the boat are looking to
him for guidance and that he needs to reassure them.
When they get close to shore and the boat turns, the captain is able to get a hold of the
boat and ride it towards the shore. He makes it safely to shore alive despite the fact that he was
the only injured man in the boat.
The oiler is the man with whom the correspondent is taking turns with rowing the boat.
His name is Billie, and he is the only character that is called by name in this story. That fact ties
Fiction Essays
66
into naturalism – the author gives us the impression that there is no reason to know any of their
names, yet by chance we learn one of the names.
Billie is described as strong and he is the only man in the boat who is rowing and who has
also been to sea many times before. His strength and determination is one of the primary
reasons that the men even make it close to shore. If he were not in the boat, it is doubtful that
the correspondent would have had the energy and strength to get them close to shore all on his
own.
As they get close to shore their boat capsizes and they must face the ruthless tide alone.
Billie starts out strong and it looks like he will be the first one to make it safely to shore. The
oiler, Billie, does not. He washes up to shore dead: ―In the shallows, face downward, lay the
oiler. His forehead touched sand that was periodically, between each wave, clear of the sea‖
(Crane). We are not given the details of his death; we can only assume that he has drowned. The
theory of survival of the fittest is shot.
This final incident in the story is the ―icing on the cake‖ to the worldview of naturalism.
Throughout the story we are told about Billie‘s strength. Near the end of the story we are told
how he has a head start towards shore. He is the reason that the men were able to make it to
shore. He is dead.
The four characters all went through stages of hope and hopelessness depending on their
circumstance. The writer sums up their collaborate feelings throughout this adventure in a raging
paragraph:
If I am going to be drowned-- if I am going to be drowned--if I am going to be drowned,
why, in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the sea, was I allowed to come thus far
and contemplate sand and trees? Was I brought here merely to have my nose dragged
away as I was about to nibble the sacred cheese of life? It is preposterous. If this old
ninny-woman, Fate, cannot do better than this, she should be deprived of the
management of men's fortunes. She is an old hen who knows not her intention. If she
has decided to drown me, why did she not do it in the beginning and save me all this
trouble? The whole affair is absurd.... But no, she cannot mean to drown me. She dare
not drown me. She cannot drown me. Not after all this work (Crane).
Naturalism rears its ugly head in the previous paragraph. The characters feel that is senseless for
them to have gone through all of this trouble if they are just going to die anyway.
Fiction Essays
67
Throughout the story the men are all striving to embrace their knowledge, but they
constantly make mistakes and miscalculations. The story tells us that they really know nothing,
―These constant shiftings of seeming to know are symbolic of all knowledge. Ultimately, all that
matters is the individual consciousness‖ (Thurston). This convinces the correspondent that there
is no rhyme or reason to life. He wanted life to make sense, they all did, but they are convinced
that it does not.
Bibliography
Bernardo, Karen. ―Stephen Crane‘s The Open Boat.‖ 1 November 2009 <
http://www.storybites.com/Craneboat2.htm>.
Campbell, Donna M. ―Naturalism in American Literature.‖ 9 November 009
<http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/natural.htm>.
Crane, Stephen. ―The Open Boat.‖ 1 November 2009
<http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1514/>.
Hart, James D. The Oxford Companion to American Literature, 6th ed. Oxford University Press,
1995.
Murphy, Bruce. Benet‘s Reader‘s Encyclopedia. Harper Collins Publishers, 1996.
―The Open Boat Characters.‖ Answers.com. 1 November 2009
<http://www.answers.com/topic/the-open-boat-story-3>.
Thurston, Brandon. ―Literary Analysis: The Open Boat, by Stephen Crain.‖ Helium. 1 November
2009 <http://www.helium.com/items/1036857-literary-analysis-the-open-boat-by-stephencrane>.
Fiction Essays
14
68
Gimpel the Fool
Clare Raney
In his story, Gimpel the Fool, Isaac Bashevis Singer indirectly poses the question, ―What
makes a man a fool?‖ Singer is a renowned Yiddish author and the winner of the Nobel Peace
Prize for Literature in 1978 (Benet's, 903). His question is not an easy one to answer. It is plain to
see, when one reads the story, that Gimpel is a fool. The hard question is why. It is my theory
that Gimpel is a fool because he built his house upon ―the sand.‖ Gimpel is a fool at the
beginning of the story, and he is a fool all throughout the story. Gimpel is a fool because he
always bases his faith on human wisdom, which is ever changing. In the very last sentences of the
story though, it seems that Gimpel acknowledges heaven as the only true world. Can there be
redemption for such a fool as Gimpel?
I do not believe that it is an accident that Singer describes the house that Gimpel and
Elka live in as a ―clay house, which was built on the sand‖ (Gioia, 747). This is a red flag to
anyone who is well-versed in scripture. It should immediately bring to one's mind Matthew 7: 2427, which is the parable of the wise man and the foolish man:
24Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is
like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams
rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had
its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does
not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The
rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house,
and it fell with a great crash (www.biblegateway.com).
Gimpel's faith is not built on the words of Jesus. It is built on the shifting sands of
human thinking. Gimpel is trying to decide truth based on his own human capacities, which is his
major character flaw. Gimpel is the proverbial foolish man of Matthew 7. In the end, he pays for
his foolishness, and his wife tells him on her death bed that none of their children are his. Even
worse, she tells him that she cannot be sure of who their fathers actually are because ―there were
a lot‖ (Gioia, 753).
Fiction Essays
69
Gimpel's ideals and reasoning are always changing through out the story. His first
resolution was to believe whatever he was told. ―For all his life, Gimpel has been known as a fool.
He relates that, early in life, he decided to believe everything he heard in order to avoid being
harassed for his reactions to people's jokes‖ (Smith, 254). Early in his life, Gimpel relied on his
own wisdom to decide what he should believe. His wisdom was that if he believed everyone, then
they would not become angry with him. In the words of Gimpel, ―I had to believe them when
the whole town came down on me! If ever I dared to say 'Ah, you're kidding!' there was trouble‖
(Gioia, 746).
The test came for this resolution when the townspeople tricked Gimpel into believing
that his parents were back from the dead. Gimpel did not believe them at first, but then he could
not be sure. He went to check, and the townspeople made fun of him. After this happened,
Gimpel said, ―And then I took a vow to believe nothing more‖ (Gioia, 746). Gimpel knew that
these people had tricked him before, and he resolved not to trust them anymore. He is so close to
moving off the sand here. Psalms 146:3 says, ―Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men,
who cannot save‖ (www.biblegateway.com). If Gimpel had stuck to his guns about not trusting
men and matured in his faith to trust God, his circumstances may have been different. Perhaps a
very great tragedy in this story is the next sentence after this resolution, ―But that was no good
either. They confused me so that I didn't know the big end from the small‖ (Gioia, 746).
Gimpel's inconsistent belief system is evidence that he is living on the sand. Every time
trouble arose in his life, he fell flat. Because he had built his life upon the sand, he let himself be
coerced into a terrible marriage. He did not believe that Elka was what the townspeople said she
was. ―She was no chaste maiden, but they told me she was a virgin pure...She had a bastard, and
they told me it was her little brother. I cried, 'You're wasting your time. I'll never marry that
whore!' (Gioia, 747). He knew that she was a harlot, but he went to meet her anyway because the
townspeople threatened to turn him into the rabbi for sullying her name.
This is what he got for believing the lying tongues of the townspeople once again: ―Ten
times a day she threatened to divorce me. Another man in my place would have taken French
leave and disappeared. But I'm the type that bears it and says nothing. What's one to do?
Shoulders are from God, and burdens are too‖ (Gioia, 749). He describes his marriage as a
burden. That is not the romantic, happy language a newly-wed should be using to describe his
marriage. His marriage only gets worse from there out.
Fiction Essays
70
One night when there is trouble at the bakery, Gimpel goes home midweek to sleep in his
own bed. He finds another man with Elka. Instead of screaming and waking the baby, he leaves
quietly, goes back to the bakery, and then tells the rabbi what he saw the next morning. ―Gimpel
chooses not to believe anymore. He is not going to be made a sucker all his life... But even this
self-awareness does not prevent Gimpel from longing to return home after the rabbi orders him
to divorce Elka for her adultery. Love makes him rationalize his wife's betrayal: he was
hallucinating‖ (Janik, 216). Love is not a firm foundation on which to base truth either. Gimpel is
still making his house on the sand. Gimpel is still a fool.
Because Gimpel went back to tell the rabbi that he was wrong and that Elka had not
committed adultery, they tried to find a way for him to return home. They found ―an obscure
reference in Maimonides that favored‖ him (Gioia, 751). In so doing, Gimpel found yet another
sandy surface to build his house upon. As he contemplates returning home he thinks to himself,
―Maimonides says it's right, and therefore it is right!‖ (Gioia, 751). Gimpel is still a fool.
Maimonides was just a man, who was also prey to human wisdom. Here is the wisdom of
Maimonides: ―Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress‖ also ―You must
accept the truth from whatever source it comes‖ (www.brainyquote.com). That is a direct affront
to living on the Rock. Jesus' words are the rock that we are told to build our house upon. In John
14:6 Jesus says, ―I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through me‖ (www.biblegateway.com). One cannot believe Maimonides and Jesus at the same
time. Maimonides says truth can come from any source. Jesus says He is truth. Since Gimpel
chooses to believe Maimonides, he continues on in being a fool.
Because of Gimpel's faith in something other than Biblical truth, once again his house
crumbles. He returns home after nine long months of waiting for the rabbis to find him an
answer only to find the apprentice that he had asked to take food to his wife sleeping in his bed.
Apparently, Maimonides could not erase the fact that Gimpel's wife was the town whore. She told
Gimpel to go check on the goat and bought her lover time to get away. When Gimpel returned
and asked where he had gone, she said that no one has been there. She said to him, ―An evil spirit
has taken root in you and dazzles your sight‖ (Gioia, 752). It is evident that he did not believe her
because the next day he accuses the apprentice, but he also denies the encounter.
From this point on, Gimpel becomes even more foolish. He says, ―All kinds of things
happened, but I neither saw nor heard‖ (Gioia, 753). Instead of trying to rely on his own
Fiction Essays
71
wisdom, his feelings of love, or on the wisdom of ―wise men‖, Gimpel simply shuts down and
ignores the truth. He probably sees more men in his bed with his wife, but he ignores it. The part
that sickens me to the core is what he tells his wife while she lays dying. She tries to confess to
Gimpel that she did, in fact, have all those affairs that she had told him he had imagined, but he
tells her, ―You have been a good and faithful wife‖
(Gioia, 753). How thick can a person be?! Gimpel had completely checked out. Choosing to
ignore the truth was still a way that Gimpel continued to build his house upon the sand. Even
when she tried to tell him the truth that he had so long wanted to know, he refused to
acknowledge it. He continued on in his foolish ways.
Shortly after the death of his wife, Gimpel has a dream. The devil comes and tells him
that there is no God only ―a thick mire‖ (Gioia, 754). As if Gimpel could make no more foolish
choice, he chooses to take stock in the words of the devil himself! If building your life on the
words of men is considered building your house on the sand, then building your life on the
words of the devil is like building your house on quick sand! There was no way that this new
perspective of Gimpel's was going to end happily. The devil told Gimpel to pee into the dough
for the bread and make all of the townspeople of Frampol eat his filth. Gimpel did as he was
told. Then he saw Elka in a dream, and she reprimanded him. He buried all the bread, and then
he did something strange. He runs away from home and goes ―into the world‖ (Gioia, 754).
Gimpel left Frampol and became a drifter. His logic becomes very existential. ―I heard a
great deal, many lies and falsehoods, but the longer I lived the more I understood that there were
really no lies. Whatever doesn't really happen is dreamed at night. It happens to one of it doesn't
happen to another, tomorrow if not today, or a century hence if not next year. What difference
can it make?‖ (Gioia, 755). Again, this is not a system built upon the Word. Gimpel is building his
worldview based on his experiences. He concluded that there were no lies. Even if a person lied
and told him that something happened to him that did not, this was not a lie because it must have
happened to some one. Gimpel had spent his whole life trying to ascertain what the truth really
was. He pursued sandy shores, and his house continuously fell.
In the very last paragraph of Gimpel the Fool, it seems that Singer wants to redeem Gimpel.
Gimpel acknowledges that heaven is the only true world when he says, ―No doubt the world is
entirely an imaginary world, but it is only once removed from the true world‖ (Gioia, 755). Is
Gimpel finally starting to understand? Is he finally starting to see that he has been building his
Fiction Essays
72
house on the sand all the years of his life. In the last lines of the story, Gimpel says, ―Whatever
may be there, it will be real, without complication, without ridicule, without deception. God be
praised: there even Gimpel cannot be deceived‖ (Gioia, 755). It seems to me that Gimpel finally
is building his life upon the rock of God's salvation. I do not think, however, that Gimpel has
come to a real understanding of God's plan of salvation through Christ. There is hope at the end
of this story. Gimpel believes in heaven and not in the world, and that realization is the closest he
has ever come in his life to not being a fool.
Fiction Essays
15
73
Babylon Revisited
Chip Pagel
―They laugh at all fortified cities; they build earthen ramps and capture them. Then they
sweep past like the wind and go onguilty men, whose own strength is their god‖ (New
International Version, Habakkuk 1:10-11). These are the words the Lord used to describe the men
and culture of Babylon when he spoke to the prophet Habakkuk. With similar words, Charlie
Wales, the protagonist in F. Scott Fitzgerald‘s Babylon Revisited, describes the life of the American
expatriate living in 1920‘s Paris. He says, ―We were a sort of royalty, almost infallible, with a sort
of magic around us‖ (Fitzgerald 249). Both groups, driven by their greed, strength, and fame
experienced momentary glory followed by judgment. For Charlie Wales, the cost of wild living
included losing his character, honor, wife, and daughter. However, following his emotional and
physical exile, he returns to Babylon (Paris) to regain custody of his daughter. He presents
himself to his sister‘s family and his former friends as a completely changed man who is both
sober and employed (Bodine). Despite his personal reformation Charlie still struggles to be
distanced from his past. The conflict between his past and present life is characterized by many
images and relationships in the story. It is illustrated by the geography and overall outlay of Paris.
Also, the struggle is presented and contrasted through the lives of Charlie‘s old friends and those
of his sister‘s family. In Babylon Revisited the conflict between Charlie‘s past and present life is
communicated through his relationships and physical locations within Paris.
The conflict between the old and new Charlie is demonstrated through other characters
in the story. Two of the characters who represent the rehabbed Charlie are his in-laws. The new
Charlie is characterized by the more responsible lives of Marion and Lincoln Peters (Kuehl 81).
Marion, in particular, represents the attitude of the reformed Charlie. Her character and attitude
toward Charlie‘s past is a personification of his present conscience (Magnum 1373). She remains
unwilling to part with Honoria even though both her and Charlie despise his past. Throughout
the story ―she remains obdurate‖ and will never forget what Charlie did to her sister Helen (Bryer
272). Despite this difficulty, Charlie repeatedly seeks to prove himself to Marion by asserting his
own responsibility. On his return he proclaims his recovery and readiness to care for his
daughter. His income has returned along with his sobriety. He says, ―I haven‘t had more than a
Fiction Essays
74
drink a day for over a year, and I take that drink deliberately, so that the idea of alcohol won‘t get
too big in my imagination‖ (Fitzgerald 254). Horrified by his past he maturely accepts the brute
criticism given by Marion (Bodine). Charlie knew he would receive a ―beating‖ from her and said
to himself, ―Keep your temper…You don‘t want to be justified. You want Honoria‖ (Fitzgerald
254). His present love and determination to care for his daughter compares equally to that of the
Peter‘s in the past. This family represents the overall reformed spirit of Charlie Wales.
The traits and characteristics of the old Charlie are also demonstrated through characters
in the story. The wild and unrestrained Charlie is embodied by his old drinking friends Lorraine
and Duncan (Magnum 1373). Charlie reveled with them when his family first emigrated to
France following their success in the stock market boom. Duncan and Lorraine serve as an
unfortunate reminder of Charlie‘s prior moral failures. The past, ―follows Charlie like a ghost in
the persons of Duncan Schaeffer and Lorraine Quarrles‖ (Bryer 17). In the fourth section of the
story Charlie receives a letter from Lorraine which brings back a significant memory. She says,
―we did have such good times that crazy spring, like the night you and I stole the butcher‘s
tricycle, and the time we tried to call on the president and you had the old derby rim and the wire
cane‖ (Fitzgerald 258). The recollection of this event shocks Charlie and forces him to connect it
with the tragic locking out of his wife on a cold night. He says that locking her out, ―didn‘t fit in
with any other act of his life, but the tricycle incident did‖ (Fitzgerald 258). The tricycle account
is a painful reminder of the ―bygone incident determining present action‖ (Kuehl 85). In other
words, Lorraine‘s letter painfully tells Charlie why he lost his wife and faces the challenge of
regaining his daughter.
Lorraine and Duncan not only remind Charlie of his egregious past. They also constantly
tempt the reformed Charlie to return to his former lifestyle. Charlie must actively reject their
proposals twice in section two of the story (Kuehl 82). He rejects their invitation to dinner and
refuses to give them his hotel address while out with Honoria. The fact that they repeatedly
show up underscores Charlie‘s struggle to remove himself from his past. Another example of
such haunting occurs in the aforementioned letter of section four. There Lorraine asks,
―Couldn‘t we get together some time today for old time‘s sake?‖ (Fitzgerald 258). She implores
Charlie to come out with her and rekindle the fun flames of yesteryear. He ignores her request
and notices that, ―it was a relief to think, instead, of Honoria‖ (Fitzgerald 258). This choice
represents a moral victory over the person of his past as characterized by Lorraine.
Fiction Essays
75
This personal conflict illustrated by his old friends comes full circle during the fourth
section of the story. While Charlie attempts to win back custody of Honoria, Lorraine and
Duncan arrive at the Peter‘s. The two ―were gay, they were hilarious, they were roaring with
laughter‖ (Fitzgerald 259). In a drunken stupor they invite Charlie one last time to participate in
their games. On the other side, Marion and Lincoln are completely shocked and appalled.
Charlie, placed between two groups of people who embody his past and present, is faced with a
dramatic decision. He rejects the urgings of his past life and experiences outrage at their
boldness. In doing so, Charlie turns away a final temptation and haunting by his past friends. In
effect, ―the past that Duncan and Lorraine symbolize is renounced once and for all‖ (Kuehl 82).
Even though he rejects the rampant lifestyle of his past, the tumultuous event prevents him
gaining custody of Honoria. Although Charlie loses the immediate chance to regain his daughter,
he gains another victory over his past and former friends.
In addition to characters, Fitzgerald also uses geography and locations in Paris to illustrate
the inward conflict Charlie experiences. When the stock market boomed during the 1920‘s many
newly rich Americans traveled abroad. ―In 1928 the Department of Commerce reported that
more than 437,000 Americans had sailed abroad, and the favorite destination was France‖ (Qtd
in Kennedy 166). France became the location of choice for Americans who wanted to live
abroad. During the boom Americans undoubtedly controlled numerous places in the city like the
Ritz Bar (Kennedy 320). Such American dominance of France was quite familiar to the old
Charlie Wales. The luncheons, parties, and hangovers were a part of everyday life. However,
when the recuperated Charlie returned from Prague during the depression he noticed a change.
Speaking of the Ritz Bar he says, ―It was not an American bar anymorehe felt polite in it, and
not as if he owned it. It had gone back into France‖ (Fitzgerald 247). This change of
atmosphere in Paris characterizes the change within Charlie. The personal conflict between the
two Charlie‘s is dramatized through both pre and post depression Paris (Kuehl 85). Paris of the
roaring twenties is characterized by lavish American living and the old Charlie. Paris of the
depression is rid of American arrogance and represents the change within the protagonist.
Fitzgerald uses several other examples and locations to portray the dichotomy between
the old and new Charlie. He heavily contrasts two specific areas of the city, the left and the right
bank. The right bank, epitomized by the Ritz Bar, is associated with a life of pleasure and
indulgence. The left bank, epitomized by the Peter‘s home on Rue Palatine is much more
Fiction Essays
76
provincial (Kennedy 322). The story begins and ends at the right bank with Charlie sitting at the
Ritz Bar. By visiting there he ―seems to repeatedly flirt dangerously with the past‖ (Bodine).
However, in both instances the reformed Charlie prevails as he is able to resist the temptations to
return to the bottle. He tells the waiter, ―no, no more‖ and realizes that all he wants is his
daughter back (Fitzgerald 261). Charlie overcomes his past, but this location nonetheless
epitomizes his former lifestyle and the chance to return to it.
In addition to the Ritz bar, other locations on the right bank represent Charlie‘s past.
Desiring to see night life from his recovered perspective, Charlie visits the right bank following
his first dinner with the Peter‘s. Fitzgerald says, ―He was curious to see Paris by night with
clearer and more judicious eyes than those of other days‖ (250). Although he has changed, the
choice to travel the right bank reveals the continued existence of the inner conflict. The travels
through this part of the city ―reveal this divided sensibility, conveying the simultaneous attraction
and repulsion that mark his reaction to the past‖ (Kennedy 322). He may ultimately strive to
make the right choices, but the conflict still exists within the character of Charlie Wales.
Finally, Fitzgerald uses the left bank and home of the Peter‘s to discuss the character
conflict within Wales. The left bank is described as more quiet and provincial. In the story, it
only includes the small area surrounding the Peter‘s house on the Rue Palatine (Kennedy 322).
Their home is both a source of comfort and guilt for Charlie. First he notes its American feel
saying, ―the room was warm and comfortably American‖ (Fitzgerald 249). This feeling is a
reminder of the nostalgic American life which brought him security and peace before he
squandered everything in France. While in this home, ―Charlie has an instinctive sense of
connection with his own national origins, with the familiar values of hearth and home, family and
faith‖ (Kennedy 323). However, the home also reminds him of the failures of his past when
Duncan and Lorraine arrive. Also, Marion‘s skeptical and critical attitude toward Charlie causes
him to revisit the darkness of his past. The left bank, and the entire city of Paris overall provide
clear allusions to the conflicts that Charlie experiences.
Throughout Babylon Revisited the protagonist is referred to as Charlie. However, in his
reunion with Honoria he identifies himself as Charles J. Wales (Fitzgerald 251). Although he sees
himself as the more dignified ‗Charles‘, the people from his past still perceive him to be Charlie
(Kuehl 81). This fact ultimately seals the inward conflict that exists within the character. Charlie
attempts to recover what he lost in the boom. However, he cannot do so without confronting
Fiction Essays
77
the tragedies of the past. To fully recover he must re-enter this ―Babylon‖ in order to retrieve his
daughter and the honor she represents (Kennedy 320-1). In doing so several images and
characters stand out as symbols of the conflict ―Charles/Charlie‖ faces. Lorraine and Duncan
are staunch reminders of a life plastered in parties and late night adventures. On the other hand,
the Peter‘s symbolize the responsible life which Charlie strives to maintain in the present.
Beyond the characters, the physical features of the city reflect the conflict as well. The right bank
and left bank represent polar opposite lifestyles and values. The famous provincial locations of
Paris are contrasted with its ―seedy tourist traps, licentious nightclubs, loose women, and money
devouring restaurants and nightspots‖ (Bodine). All of these locations and characters represent
the conflict Charlie faces. In Babylon Revisited the conflict between Charlie‘s past and present life
is communicated through his relationships and physical locations within Paris.
Works Cited
Bodine, Paul. "An Overview of "Babylon Revisited"" Literature Resource Center. 1998. Web. 3 Nov.
2009. http://ftp.ccccd.edu/mtolleson/2328online/2328notesbabylon.htm.
Bryer, Jackson R., ed. The Short Stories of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Madison: U of Wisconsin, 1982.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. "Babylon Revisited." The Art of the Short Story. New York: Pearson, 2006. 24762.
Kennedy, J. Gerald, and Jackson R. Breyer, eds. French Connections: Hemingway and Fitzgerald
Abroad. New York: St. Martins, 1998.
Kuehl, John. F. Scott Fitzgerald a study of the short fiction. Boston: Twayne, 1991.
Magnum, Bryant. A Critical Survey of Short Fiction. Ed. Frank Magill. Salem, 1982. Introduction to the
Short Stories of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Salem Press. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.
Fiction Essays
16
78
Swimmer
Christian Cowsert
The swimmer is a story of life and misfortune of a man named Neddy. He decides that he
wants to go on a swim across the county to reach his home. He decides to call this trip the
Lucinda River after his wife Lucinda. He starts out at the Westerhazy‘s pool. Neddy stands and
chats for a little bit and enjoys a drink while he is there, he continues on either interrupting a
party or he talks to them and enjoys a drink. Some of the houses Neddy is not welcomed at, like
at the Biswangers party where even the bar tender does not show him any respect. Mrs.
Biswanger talks with the guest about how Neddy showed up one day asking for money, Neddy
does not remember this. He also stops by Shirley Adams pool, who is the lady that he had an
affair with. We see Neddy‘s memory slipping the rest of the story. At the close of the story we
see that Neddy finally makes it home to find his house up for sale and his wife and kids gone. He
has forgotten that he has gone bankrupt. We see how each pool that he travels to is used to
describe the different life events that Neddy is going through, and how the middle class thinks
they can get away from it.
This story is that was written by John Cheevey. Cheevey usually writes his story‘s as they
happen in the suburban areas. (Enotes.com) He also offers a ―critique to the 20th century middle
class‖. (Authorstream.com) He seems to focus in on this area in this story. We have our main
character Neddy, a middle class man who seems to not remember anything that happened in his
past. He does not remember trying to borrow any money from Mrs. Smith as well as having an
affair with Shirley Adams. This gives the idea that since Neddy doe not remember it then it did
not happen. It could also be taken as since it did happen and Neddy may not have wanted it to
happen and regrets it then it did not happen. We see the idea that it is ok for things to happen in
the middle class and think that it is all ok, when really it is not ok at all.
This story starts out with Neddy waking up at a party with a hang over. This shows that
Neddy has problems from the start. This could also mean that Neddy has had problems in his
family ever since he was little, we do not know. We also see at the party that Neddy comes up
with this wonderful idea to swim across the count to get home. So we also see here that Neddy
think of ways to get him out of the trouble that he is in. So we have seen that he has done this
Fiction Essays
79
before. So he has experience on how he can get himself out of trouble. We will see how this plays
it self out through the rest of the story.
We see the first pool that Neddy swims through is the Westerhazy‘s pool. We see that he
starts his journey here with his friends and what we would assume from the story his family. He
is comfortable here(Answers.com) and figures this would be a good place to start, This show to
us that his family and friends did support him at a time and Neddy‘s life was good. It allows
Neddy to be an average middle class American that has everything in life going good for him at
this time.
Once Neddy leaves the Westerhazy‘s he moves on to the Graham‘s pool, there he is
welcomed. Neddy is shown great respect by the Graham‘s and shows that the community knows
him and supports him in what he does. It also shows that the community does not think that
Neddy is a bad guy and has a good set of morals.
Mrs. Hammer is the next stop on his path, but she does not recognize who Neddy is as
he swims through. We also see that the Lears heard him swim by. The Howlands and the
Crosscups where gone, so Neddy just swam on through with no disturbances. So it is revealed
that Neddy is starting to be less connected with some people in his community because of his
behavior and the fact that he is sneaking around doing things.
The Bunkers was the next pool on Neddy‘s swim across the community. Enid Bunker
saw Neddy and was happy to see him. Neddy is finding out that his wife and him where invited
to this party and she told Enid that they could not make it. So we see here that Neddy‘s wife does
not want to be a part of what ever Neddy is doing. We see that Neddy kisses several ladies‘s and
shakes hands with several Men while he is there and this could all be business related. So we see
how fond of Neddy‘s business his wife is. We also see how Neddy does not stay around and talk
to many people here, it may be because he does not want his journey to slowed by anyone and
would like to continue on to the next stop.(Storybites.com)
The next stop on this journey is the Levy‘s pool, they have private property signs up but
Neddy does not pay attention to them and swims the length of there pool and then has a drink.
He hears a clap of thunder and waits in the Levy‘s gazebo until the storm passes. This shows us
that Neddy is ok breaking the law and does not think twice. Once again that middle class I can
get away with everything attitude comes back into play. We also see that Neddy has a since of I
can just wait stuff out, in life and it will all be ok, we see this while he waits in the gazebo.
Fiction Essays
80
Neddy heads over to the Welchers pool where he finds the pool drained and everything
grown up. We see this as the point in Neddy‘s life that he is drained and everything starts to go
wrong. Needy has his first disappointment in his journey at this pool.(answers.com)
The next stop is at the Recreation Center where there is a public pool. Neddy goes
through all the steps to swim but does not wear a name badge. Once the two lifeguards see this
they begin to yell at him until he gets out of the pool. This represents the time in Neddy‘s life that
he is hearing it from both sides, his wife and family, and his boss, or business partners. This
could be the pressure that he is feeling from all of these people in his life. He may be feeling
pressure to do something that he may not really want to do.
The Halloran‘s is the next stop for Neddy. They are dear old friends and are sorry to hear
about Neddy‘s misfortune. We do not know what this is but they feel bad for Neddy. Neddy life
is starting to fall apart. The water in the pool was dark and this made him depressed and he did
not like it. This reveals to us how Neddy is feeling about life right know, depressed and down in
the dumps just wanting to get out of the situation that he is in.
Needy moves on to the Sach‘s pool where he runs into Helen and her husband. He visits
with them and then moves on. Neddy is trying to stay in connection with old friends. We also see
how Neddy uses his friends to get what he needs in this case it is a drink to warm him up.
Neddy moves on to the Biswangers where there is a party that is going on and Neddy was
not invited to. We also see that Neddy tried to borrow five thousand dollars, after hearing this
Neddy dove in and swam the length and then left. This shows to us that Neddy is willing to seek
help from anyone to try and get out of this rut that he is in. It show us that he would ruin a
friendship that he once had with the Biswangers just so he could have some money.
The second to last pool that he swims across is Shirley Adams a woman that he had an
affair with. The difference is when Neddy gets done swimming in this pool he can not lift himself
out he has to use the ladder to clime out. At this point he begins to cry, we read‖ It was probably
the first time in his adult life that he had ever cried, certainly the first time in his life that he had
ever felt so miserable, cold, tired, and bewildered.‖(paperstarter.com) Neddy is seeing everything
that he has done know and is upset about it. He is looking back on his life and wondering what
he has done and how he has got to where he is at now. Neddy finally lets his true emotions about
everything come out, and enjoys a good cry.
Fiction Essays
81
Neddy goes from here and heads over to Gilmartins pool, his final pool before he heads
home. Neddy enters the pool differently this time, he walks into the pool instead of diving in and
swims down to the ladder and climbs out. This shows the change that Neddy is going to make in
his life. There is a point in everyone life that they see they need to make a change and they act on
it and begin the change. This is that point for Neddy, a chance to make his life better and make a
difference.
Neddy heads home after this and find his house empty and locked up. No one is there
and it is dark and lonely. He can figure out where everyone is at. Neddy wants to see his family
and make things right. This shows us that Neddy wants to make things better with his family and
go back to how things where at the beginning of the story, but we see that it is to late everyone is
gone and he is left there alone wondering how he can fix this.
In closing we see the progression of Neddy‘s life decisions and how it affected him and
the ones around him who he loved. This is also a example of how he thought he could get away
with it all until it all come back on Neddy and by the time he see‘s it and wants to fix it, it is to
late and his family is not around anymore. So we learn not to take advantage of those around us
and that we need to fix the problems when they happen, and not years down the road when it is
to late.
Works Cited
Bernardo, Karen. "John Cheever's The Swimmer." Story Bites. 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.storybites.com/Cheeverswimmer2.htm>.
Barnhisel, Greg. "The Swimmer." Answers.com. 2006. Web. 22 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.answers.com/topic/the-swimmer-story-8>.
"John Cheever." E-notes. 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://www.enotes.com/short-storycriticism/swimmer-john-cheever>.
"John Cheever" The Swimmer"" Author Stream. 2002. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.authorstream.com/presentation/tccampa-65533-swimmer-john-cheeverliterature-story-education-ppt-powerpoint/>.
Cheevey, John. "Swimmer quotes." Paper starter. 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2009.
<http://www.paperstarter.com/swimmer.htm>.
Fiction Essays
17
82
Gimpel the Fool
Bethany Wilson
Everyone has a story to tell; some are exciting, some boring, and some are tragic. Isaac
Bashevis Singer was a man whose life experiences gave him a story to tell. Through novels, short
stories, and even children‘s books he expressed the deep sadness in losing one‘s identity and the
importance of heritage. To abandon one‘s heritage is to abandon one‘s self because the two are
inseparable. Through the comparison in Gimpel the Fool between the effects of the turmoil in
Singer‘s country to Gimpel‘s ostracized life, his orphaned past, and his faith, it is evident Isaac
Singer saw the necessity of keeping one‘s faith in the midst of evil in order to preserve one‘s
identity.
―Contemnit procellas‖ is the motto of Warsaw, Poland. It is the capital city, and one to
be reckoned with. The phrase means, ―It defies the storms,‖ and that is indeed what the city has
done. Time and time again the city has seen massacres and war; and yet, since the end of the
fourteenth century to present date the city has remained intact. Even after the city was burned
and the buildings demolished, it emerged from the ashes and reclaimed its place as the capital of
Poland (Safra 696).
A city such as this, with an incredible history and a beautiful motto, would make a people
proud of where they came from. Isaac Bashevis Singer was no different. His departure from his
home in 1935 was in no way an abandonment of his heritage. He lived in New York and worked
for the Jewish Daily Forward, which was a Yiddish Newspaper through which he published many
short stories and wrote under the pseudo name ―Warshofsky‖ (Safra 833). Moving to the States
did not cause Singer to lose sight of his past. His writings are filled with the history of Yiddish
Poland often portraying the hero in a ghetto setting, including, ―their traditional faith and
folkways, their daily village life, and their mysticism‖ (Hart 609). His characters were ones who
defied the storm.
In the short story Gimpel the Fool, the main character is a man who lived in a Jewish ghetto
in Poland. From his days in school to his days as an old man, those around him abused the trust
he had in the words of others. When he was in school the other children ―laughed and heehawed‖ at him (Singer 745). The townspeople considered him a fool, his wife disregarded him
Fiction Essays
83
through constant affairs, and in the end he was alone. It was when his wife was on her deathbed
she confessed to him, ― I want to go clean to my Maker, and so I have to tell you that the
children are not yours‖ (Singer 753). He let the insults and abuse pass and he accepted the way
people took advantage of his gullibility.
This abuse in Gimpel‘s life reflects the ostracism the Jews experienced throughout their
heritage. Singer was raised Jewish and went to seminary for a year; he knew the history of the
Jews. Throughout their history they went through times of oppression and slavery. They were
taken from their homes and their land was stolen. The Jewish people have been exiled many
times and have been heavily persecuted throughout the generations.
The history of the Jews has shown that they live in community with each other. Warsaw
was a ghetto in Poland with a strong Jewish influence and at the beginning of the twentieth
century the population was roughly fifty percent Yiddish speaking Jews. They led a religiously
and politically free life with a Yiddish press, theatre, and Jewish schools (Safra 698). In this
community they were free to live by their faith in a safe and un-persecuted environment.
Unfortunately, the safe and free life Singer knew came to a violent close. In 1943, the German
army attacked Warsaw and thousands of people were being shipped to the gas chambers at
Treblinka (Safra 698). During the Holocaust, the Jewish people were the main target of the Nazi
regime. They were once again exiled for no fault of their own and for seemingly no reason.
The connection between Gimpel and the Jews would have been clear to the Yiddish
audience. Singer portrayed the main character as an ostracized man in order to connect his
audience with the story. Gimpel may have been set apart from his community as the village fool,
but he did not let the abuse change his character. He did not let his circumstances determine who
he was; who he was determined how he handled his circumstances. In the beginning, Gimpel
admitted he was no weakling and that he could defend himself, but he was ―not really a slugger
by nature‖ and to fight back would go against his character (Singer 745). His optimism persisted
throughout the storms of his life. Gimpel kept true to the man he was and did not concede to
evil that surrounded him to escape his ostracism. Singer did not want to see his people give up on
their identity and fall prey to the societal expectations of a new community that formed after the
destruction of WWII. The forces that crumbled the walls of Warsaw also broke the spirits of the
people.
Fiction Essays
84
The Warsaw ghetto was destroyed and burned at the end of the war (Safra 696).
Structurally it would be rebuilt, but life would never be the same. Warsaw was surrounded by evil,
and the people who survived the horrific events of the Holocaust were deeply affected. Singer
saw the community where he was raised give up on its identity. He not only wanted to see the
city of Warsaw defy the storm, he wanted to see the people of the city defy the storm as well. He
desired for them the life they once led; but tragically, the life they once led was out of reach due
to the war that left them homeless and without family.
Several times Gimpel referred to himself as an orphan, and Elka did as well. Before he
married her he asked her if she truly was a virgin and he said, ―Don‘t be deceitful with me, for
I‘m an orphan,‖ to which she immediately replied, ―I am an orphan myself‖ (Singer 747). Many
people had hurt Gimpel, even the people he should have been able to trust. As a result he saw
himself as an orphan. He was teased since the time he was a child; by his peers at school, the
women in the bakery, and even the rabbi‘s daughter took advantage of him. He had every right to
be bitter in his life, which seemed to be expendable to everyone he had ever known. But in the
end, his character was not overcome by his orphaned life.
It is no wonder why the idea of being an orphan was prevalent in Gimpel the Fool. The
Yiddish Jews would have identified with feelings of disconnect. To live through the Holocaust
would have had an affect on the spiritual state of the global Jewish community. They
undoubtedly felt abandoned by their God. When Gimpel had the conversation with the Spirit of
Evil, the spirit told him there was no new world, and ―there [was] no God either‖ (Singer 754).
This ―Spirit of Evil‖ was the spiritual climate in Europe during World War II, telling the Jews
that in a world filled with evil, hatred, and intense persecution, they were alone.
The conversation with the spirit convinced Gimpel that he was alone beyond his
relationships. The spirit attacked his faith and convinced him that not only was he an orphan, but
his faith, what he had clung to, was meaningless as well. ―A thick mire‖ was all there was (Singer
754). Gimpel lost his faith and as a result he lost himself. This is clear when for the first time he
decides to act evilly and ―[he] let [him]self be persuaded‖ to ruin the bread. (Singer 754). The
decision of his faith was the turning point for Gimpel‘s life. The Holocaust was a turning point
for many Jews and it came down to one question: Could there be a God in the midst of a world
so evil?
Fiction Essays
85
The story did not end in this feeling of hopelessness. Gimpel stumbled and repaid all the
evil poured out on him by ruining the dough, but the night he ruined the bread he had a dream
about Elka. She told Gimpel she had only deceived herself and was paying for it. It was just as
the rabbi had said, ―for he who causes his neighbor to feel shame loses Paradise himself‖ (Singer
746). It was after this dream Gimpel truly decided who he would be and what he believed in
matters of God.
The next day, he immediately buried the bread and left Frampol free of guilt. His integrity
prevailed and he did not change to fit those around him. He was given the choice to retaliate, but
instead, he left knowing that it is not the facts of the events that necessarily mattered, but the
affect those events had on the hearts and minds of people (James 2160). He met many people, sat
at many tables, and heard many more lies. He may have seemed a fool to those that surrounded
him, but when he was old and white he knew he had led a faithful life worthy of eternity (Singer
754).
The story is about faith in personal identity and in whom one believes. Faith in spite of
feeling utterly alone and abandoned will bring contentment just as it did for Gimpel. He even
remembered Elka in a positive light; when he dreamed of her, her ―face [was] shining and her
eyes [were] as radiant as the eyes of a saint‖ (Singer 755). He refused to become like those of the
town, to entertain evil, and as his reward he lived with utter peace of mind (Goring 297). At the
end of his life he considered the world in which he lived to be ―once removed from the true
world,‖ which was free from complication, ridicule, and deception, and where ―God be praised:
there even Gimpel [could not] be deceived‖ (Singer 755). This life is not the end, so ―better to be
a fool all your days than for one hour to be evil‖ (Singer 746). Because Gimpel remained faithful
he was able to look at death with joy.
Singer wrote to his audience to encourage the faith of his fellow Jews. It pained Singer to
see his heritage back down and submit to the fear evoked by war and to lose the very essence of
who they were due to the cultural expectations of the war-torn country. He saw the disintegration
of language and close-knit communities for common city life as an act of surrender (Safra 833).
This is why Singer continued writing in Yiddish even after many years in the States. He never
forgot where he came from, and the purpose of his writing was to remind the Yiddish people
where they had come from, to defy the storm, and take back their identity. They were still a
united people in a world of more than mire.
Fiction Essays
86
When the people of Warsaw lost their faith, they lost their identity and that is what made
them orphans; not the tragedy caused by the fools that surrounded them. They were not
abandoned, but they did abandoned themselves. Yet even as Gimpel temporarily lost who he
was, hope was not lost, he turned back to his true identity and found the faith he once had.
Gimpel did not stay in Frampol; he was able to be himself despite location and the Yiddish Jews
could do the same. Singer believed in the possibilities of maintaining one‘s identity while also
residing at an alternate address. He loved his heritage and his people and he faithfully wrote for
them until the day he died, always reminding them they could defy the storm.
Works Cited
Goring, Rosemary, ed. Larousse Dictionary of Literary Characters. New York: Larousse, 1994. Print.
Hart, James. The Oxford Companion to American Literature. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
1995. Print.
James, Henry, and Ezekiel Mphahlele. Critical Survey of Short Fiction. Charles E. May. 2nd ed. Vol. 4.
Pasadena: Salem, 2001. Print.
Safra, Jacob E., and Jorge Aguilar-Cauz, comps. "Isaac Bashevis Singer." The New Encyclopedia
Britannica. 15th ed. 883-84. Print.
Safra, Jacob E., and Jorge Aguilar-Cauz, comps. "Warsaw." The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed.
1079-082. Print.
Singer, Isaac. ―Gimpel the Fool‖. The Art of the Short Story. Gioia, Dana, and R. S. Gwynn, comps.
New York: Longman, 2006. Print.
Fiction Essays
87
18 A Party Down at the Square
Jon Magnuson
In the short story A Party Down at the Square a young man from Cincinnati witness the
lynching of a ―Bacote Nigger‖. His range of emotions and reactions paints a picture of the
culture of Alabama during the late thirties and early forties in America. Ellison used this picture
of a lynching to show the deprivation of humanity overall and the indifference of death toward
skin color and social class. He uses the nephew, crowd and sheriff to show the abhorrence of
humanity in the south.
The first insight into the abhorrence of humanity is seen in the nephew. The young
nephew is visiting his uncle in Alabama. Ellison breaking the typical ―norm‖ for African
American writers at that time, using a white narrator to tell the story of the lynching. Many
contend that the sense of innocence and naivety shown through the young nephew only increases
the impact of what Ellison is trying to achieve. His ―innocence‖ is portrayed at the very
beginning of the story when he runs to the square with his uncles friends to see a ―party.‖ He
quickly realizes that the ―party‖ is a lynching. The nephew does not turn and run away, but
stands there like he is watching a horrific accident.
Ellison continues to use words and emotions of the nephew throughout the lynching as
windows into the abhorrence of humanity. At no point in the story does the nephew, or any one
else refer to the victim as a man, or even a human. He is simply a ―nigger‖or the ―Bacote
Nigger‖. In the last lines of the story the nephew says, ―It was my first party and my last. God,
but that nigger was tough. That Bacote nigger was some nigger.‖ It is unclear if these words are
to be taken as respect for the victim or if they are meant to be degrading. However if the words
are meant in a respectful sense, Ellison has successfully portrayed that respect for a black man is
not respect at all. Further when recalling the event he says ―Everytime I eat barbeque I‘ll
remember that nigger. His back was just like a barbeque hog‖, earlier in the story he is called ―a
chicken on a hot stove.‖ The victim is not a man, he was an animal to them, having no rights or
values to his life.
Callahan in writing the afterword in Esquire magazine where the story was published say
that ―The repetition of the word nigger denies, affirms, and again denies the sense of mystery and
Fiction Essays
88
equality Ellison celebrated in "Brave Words for a Startling Occasion," his speech acknowledging
the National Book Award for Invisible Man, as that "mood of personal moral responsibility for
democracy" he felt had all but disappeared from American fiction after classic nineteenth-century
writers yielded to the modems in the 1920s.‖ (Callahan 90-95) Further as Robin Sulkosky points
out the narrator after the ordeal of the ―bacote nigger‖ and the death of an unnamed woman by
electrocution the narrator gets sick from the taste of his blood from busted lip, not any of the
previous events. Sulkosky goes on to say that this show the numbness of the narrator towards
not only death but the motivations behind death. (Sulkosky 1)
In addition to the words and emotions, the actions of the nephew are used by Ellison.
When first arriving he stand in the back of the crowd, but after a while he makes his way towards
the front of the crowd, ―...from where I stood in the back, so I pushed my way up front‖. After
working his way up front he simply looks and watches without even uttering a disagreement what
is going on, ―...I looked down to the platform‖, ―I watched the flames burning...‖ Ellison adds a
break in the story where the narrator could run or escape in the form of the plane and cyclone.
After these two events the narrator does not run back to his uncles house, he does not run away,
he simply rejoins the crowd. He actions, or more accurately non-actions show the ugly side of
humanity, a murder becomes a show, and a mob mentality is created. Callahan writes that His
technique in "A Party Down at the Square" compels readers to experience the human condition
in extremis, as mediated by a stranger hell-bent on observation and not the act of witness.
(Callahan 90-95)
The second group that Ellison uses is the crowd, which may be used to represent the
attitudes in the south as a whole. Ellison uses the words of the crowd during the lynching as a
another powerful tool. The night the lynching is taking place is a horribly cold night, the wind is
howling and freezing rain has put a thin sheet of ice on the cobblestone. The victim is tied to a
pole and is shivering trying to stay warm. The crowd repeatedly yells ―Take your hands out of
your pockets, nigger; where goin have plenty heat in a minnit.‖ and after the flames are rising
with the help of the wind and some gasoline the frenszied crowd says ―Well nigger it aint so cold
now is it?‖ Further when pleading for someone to cut his throat and do the ―Christian thing‖ Jed
Wilson, the lead antagonist of the story replies ―Sorry but aint no Christians here, where just one
hundred percent Americans.‖ It is important to realize that Ellison is not be using this to degrade
the white southerner. Later in his writing career he constantly wrote to show the depravation of
Fiction Essays
89
humanity as a whole, not limited to specific races. In his essay ― An Extravagance of Laughter‖
he please for an understanding of all southerners, not merely black southerners. (Harris 555)
Another specific areas of abhorrence showed by the crowd is the fact not only that so
many people showed up, but the fact that some actually traveled to see the lynching. The number
of people counted by the nephew is over forty meaning that many have actually traveled to see
this ―party‖ from Phenix City, including over 35 women. Lynchings in the South, if for a crime of
high stature, such as the reported murder of a child, where highly attended. In one recording of a
lynching in Paris, Texas it was reported to be attended by over 10,000 people traveled all the way
from Forth Worth, Dallas, and Denison to see it. This lynching is one of the most horrendous
recorded in history, they burned the victim on a ten foot scaffling, making a circus show of the
mans murder. It would also not have been unnatural for small children to attend the lynching
with their parents in the hopes of teaching them about justice and how to be a productive
member of society. (Royster 94-97)
Ellison also uses the action and non-action of the crowd to show abhorrence in the form
of indifference. Throughout the lynching crowd is constantly jeering and cheering as the lynching
progresses, ironically they become like animals themselves. When the victim rolls off the fire the
narrator is almost pushed into him by the crowd, when the narrator wants to leave the crowd is
too thick and when he makes it towards the back he is spit on and scratched in the face by a
woman who ―wanted to get up close‖. In the story of the earlier lynching in Paris, Texas a
eyewitness account records similar behavior ―...he was about to torture his helpless victim, the
children became frantic as the grown people and struggled to gain a better position. Every on was
worked up into a greater frenzy...it was harder to hold back the crowd back, so anxious where the
savages to participate in the sickening torture.‖ (Royster 97)
When the victim rolls out of the fire desperately attempting to escape death the crowd
rolls the victim back into the fire saying ―he simply will not hold still‖. They use branches from
the downed trees to hold him in the fire until he finally quits moving. Again this behavior is not
uncommon in lynching mobs. In an recorded account of a lynching in Alabama it is reported that
the victim while being burned at the stake tried to quicken his death by swallowing some coals, in
response to this the crowd would kick the ashes out of his reach, simply enjoying the show.
(Gasset 113)After the victim has perished his bones becomes trophies for the crowd to collect. In
the story after a week has passed the nephew sees Jed and is shown the white fingers bones of
Fiction Essays
90
the victim with skin still attached. This is the same behavior that is reported in the mob
previously mentioned by Gasset and even W.E.B. Dubois writes about seeing the finger bones
of a lynched negro displayed in a butcher shop in Atlanta. (Gasset 113)
The final group that Ellison uses is the Sheriff and his men, which can be seen as the
corruption of the justice and political system of the south. The Sheriff and his men do not appear
much in the story, but that is precisely the point that Ellison is trying to portray. There is no
doubt that the news of the ―party‖ has spread not only through out the city, but also to the
surrounding cities as well. The first mention of the sheriff and his men only comes after the
cyclone has come through and the low flying plane has knocked down some power lines.
Creating the natural question within the readers heart of ―where is the sheriff when the crowd is
burning the victim‖ and ―why is here there only after the cyclone has gone through?‖ The reader
is left with a strong sense of injustice and disbelief.
During the time period when the story took place and it composition there was much
corruption and injustice in the political and justice systems. Collaborations between law
enforcement officials and hate groups often took place. In May of 1961 when the Ku Klux Klan
ambushed a bus of freedom riders in Birghmingham, Alabama the then police chief Bull Connor
worked with them and gave them enough time for the Klan which was armed with pipes, clubs,
chains, and bat to work over the freedom writers to where they ―looked like a bull dog had
gotten a hold of them‖ Victims lay on the ground for up to two hours waiting for medical
attention, some suffering permanent brain damage. (Glitin 137)
The hatred ran even through the political areas. One such political leader was James
Vardaman who in his campaign after saying a negro is an animal who is lazy and lustful is
recorded as saying ―One does not inquire into the justice of killing predatory animals. ― We do
not stop when we see a wolf to find out if it will kill sheep before dispensing of it, but assume
that it will.‖(Gasset 113)
Towards then end of the story we learn Jed Wilson will be running for sheriff. His truck
is used to transport the man to the lynching, he pours gasoline on the fire to increase the flame,
and keeps the skeletal remains of the victim and shows if off like a trophy. Ellison in is most
celebrated novel Invisible Man uses similar language the young man is asked to speak in front of
a group of men only to find himself the victim of a cruel joke being forced into a gladiator style
boxing match. (Ellison 15-25)
Fiction Essays
91
The nephew, crowd and sheriff have all shown indifference and abhorrence towards
humanity as a whole. Through their actions and non-actions, emotions and words they have not
seen men or mankind a something to be valued. Some men are not men at all, they are invisible
and animals among us. The nephew walked away unchanged from the event, we are compelled
not to be the same.
Works Cited
Callahan, John. ―Afterword: Party Down at the Square.‖ Esquire Magazine. Jan. 1997. 30,
October 2009. <www6.district125.k12.il.us/-ranoff/files/FCP/Mockingbird/Party.pdf>
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. New York: Random House 1980
Gossett, Thoms. Black Experience: Analysis and Synthesis. San Rafael, CA: Lewsing Press, 1972
Glitin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rade. New York: Batan Publishing, 1993
Harris, Tyrone. Masterplots II African American Literature: Volume 2. Pasadena, CA: Salem
Press Inc, 2009
Kellman, Steven G. Magill‘s Survey of American Literature: Volume 2. Pasadena, CA: Salem
Press Inc,2007
Royster, Jaquline. Southern Horrors and Other Writings. Boston, NY: Beford Publishing 1997
Sulkosky, Robin. ―Thematic Critiques of A Party Down at the Square.‖ Associatedcontent.com.
Associated Content. 30, October 2009
Fiction Essays
92
19 Everyday Use
Ricky Graham
In the short story Everyday Use there are two sisters and a mother that are in the story;
―despite being sisters, Maggie and Dee‘s personalities are as opposite as night and day.‖(Cuizon
409) The characteristics of one of the sisters and the mother remind you of Christian like people,
the characteristic of the other sister remind you of people who are not Christian like. The mother
in the story, Everyday Use by Alice Walker, display at times Christian type characteristics. You
know that she definitely is a strong woman and she sticks up for the weaker person as you see in
the story that we will be discussing later. She has many imperfections like a lot of people does
and she knows it and she does not let her imperfection or her being different from most people
get to her.
Maggie, who is one of the sisters, just like every other person haves a pretty bad past,
she was burnt in her previous house that she use to live in. She has scars on her body still from
when she was burned in the house. In the story Maggie is quiet and lives under the shadow of her
mother. She is humble and stays to herself and it is like her mother takes care of her and the
mother speaks out for her. She is also supposed to be getting married but in this story she is not
with the man or anything like that.
Dee is the sister to Maggie. Dee characteristics are she is described by her mother that
nobody could say no to her. That she always got her way. She was popular and always had
attention from the opposite sex. ―A proud who Dee renames herself Wangero Leewanika
Kemanjo in the story,‖ (Tate 40) arrives with her boyfriend when she comes to visit Maggie and
her mother and his name is Hakim-a-barber. He is Dee boyfriends who accompany Wangero
(Dee) while she is back home visiting. Dee in this story wanted something that did not belong to
her and when she found out that she could not get it she got quite upset and stormed out the
house and left and went home.
In this short story Wangero (Dee) reminds me of the people in the secular world. One of
the first things that stood out about her to me was the fact that she changed her name to the
religion that she had joined with her and her boyfriend. This reminds me of people in the secular
world because since they do not know who they are in Christ they go out and try new things and
Fiction Essays
93
experiment with new things to find who they are. For instance like Wangero (Dee) this girl came
back with a whole new name and her boyfriend abide by the laws of that religion that‘s why he
would not eat certain foods like collard greens and pork that the mother had made. I know that if
Wangero (Dee) was in Christ that she would not have been so acceptable to this change of
religion and name. One thing that I can say and I know this from life experiences that if you are
ever really wrapped up in Christ it will be hard just to push him away and try new things like
other religions and stuff. Of course a person who had heard of God but have not fully experience
Christ can easily push him away and do their own thing.
Another thing that stood out about Wangero (Dee) to me was that she wanted something
that did not belong to her and when she found out that she could not get what she wanted she
stormed out the house and left. Wangero (Dee) wanted was the quilt that was promised to her
sister Maggie and would be given to her when she was to be married. Selfishness is what Dee had
in this story because she was not use to being rejected and not get what she wanted. Instead of
her being happy for her sister she was trying to make the mother break the promise. We as
Christian should not be trying to have someone break a promise like this because of our
selflessness. Christians should be happy for one another and ―Not Covet‖(Exodus 20:17) or try
to take what belongs to someone else. When Dee did not get what she wanted she had the right
not to be happy but as she stormed out and before she got into the car in a way it seemed as if
she was trying to get Maggie to turn against the mother and the Bible tells us not to ―Sow discord
among our bretheren.‖(Galatians 5:19-21) Because somebody may not do something you do not
agree with, it does not give you the right to try to get another person to dislike them.
Maggie is the sister of Dee (Wangero) and she is the sister who has the characteristics of a
Christian. In her past she was burned when her house caught on fire. Because of that she is
scarred because of that incident. I know that everybody has gone through stuff but it always
seems like the Christian goes through a little bit more than the person that is out in the world.
Just like Maggie a lot of Christians may not of been burned by a house fire but we all have a past
that has maybe scarred us not physically but emotionally. I believe that was one of the reasons
why she was humble in this short story.
Another characteristic of Maggie was that she was humble. Though she knows that she is
getting the quilt that was promised to her, she could have easily bragged and boasted to her sister
Wangero (Dee) about it but she did not at all. Even as Christians we know that God honors the
Fiction Essays
94
humble. Even if you look at Christian artist and Secular artist they differ big time about the things
they have. Secular artist talk about how much money that they have and a lot of other stuff. You
do not hear real Christian artist talk about how much money they have and so on. But
humbleness is just another characteristic of a Christian the Maggie possesses.
One of the other characteristics that Maggie has is that she is quiet. As a Christian we
know that there is a time to speak out and there is t time for us to be silent. In this short story
when Wangero (Dee) was asking about the quilt she decided to stay quiet. She could of easily
been out spoken and fought against her sister but she did not. She made very little noise but that
was about it. When she did finally talk though she was not evil neither did vulgar speech come
out of her mouth. We as Christians should be just like that we should be slow to speak but when
we do finally speak it should not be evil nor vulgar.
The mother in this short story is definitely a strong woman. She describes herself as, ―In
real life I am a large, big-boned woman with rough, man-working hands. In the winter I wear
flannel nightgowns to bed and overalls during the day. I can kill and clean a hog as mercilessly as
a man. My fat keeps me hot in zero weather. I can work outside all day, breaking ice to get water
for washing; I can eat pork liver cooked over the open fire minutes after it comes steaming from
the hog. One winter I knocked a bull calf straight in the brain between the eyes with a sledge
hammer and had the meat hung up to chill before nightfall.‖( Walker 2) So as you see right here
she is not soft nor a push over and Christians should be just as tough as her when it comes to
serving God. The toughness that the mother has is the same toughness we need when other
people talk about us when we telling others about Jesus.
Another one of the mother characteristics was that she stood up for the weaker person
when Maggie would not stand up for herself. When Maggie finally did speak up she was going to
let Dee her sister have her quilt but the mother took up for Maggie and basically told Dee that
she was not going to give that quilt to her. The Bible talks about us standing up for the poor and
the lowly and that is what the mother did in this story.
The mother knows that she is not perfect and that she is not how people want her to be.
For instance she said this in the story this is what Dee wishes her mother could be: ―…my
daughter would want me to be: a hundred pounds lighter, my skin like an uncooked barley
pancake. My hair glistens in the hot bright lights. Johnny Carson has much to do to keep up with
my quick and witty tongue.‖(Norton 27) Though she know that she cannot be how her daughter
Fiction Essays
95
would want her to be that does not get to her at all. She knows that she is different. That is the
attitude we as Christians should have. We are going to be different from people in the world and
they might even talk about us but we should not let that get to us because God made us exactly
how He wanted us to be.
In this short story Everyday Use we see three characters. Two characters have the
characteristics of a Christian and the other character Dee did not. If Dee did, it surley did not
stand out nowhere as much the mother and Maggie‘s did. ―The only thing Maggie and Dee share
in common is the fact that they were both raised by the the same woman in the same home. They
differ in appearance, personality, and ideas.‖ (Jacobs 86) We can definitely learn from the mother
and Maggie traits of being a strong Christian by their characters. The mother was a strong lady
that took up for the week and did not let what people thought of her get her down. Maggie was
very humble and quiet but when she did speak out she would not say anything negative.
Works Cited
Cuizon, Gwendolyn. African American Fiction.
Tate, Claudia C. African American Review.
Norton Anthology of African American Literature Volume VI.
Jacobs, Robert and Henry E. An introduction to Reading and Writing 5th ed.
Bible, NLT Version.