Shaking Hands

"The doctor and me have got to be kind of partners..." (Jewett 60).

In Sarah Orne Jewett's The Country of the Pointed Firs, Almira Todd expresses that the doctor can't see and help every patient seeking it, and, therefore, she supports him by reaching out to other patients with her knowledge of herbalogy. Although the two have different procedures in curing, they both are able to assist people in need of one. The cooperation of two people with such difference is also seen in Gloria Naylor's Mama Day when Miranda calls Dr. Smithfield in need for assistance of curing Bernice's pain caused by a drug foreign to Miranda. Not many men play significant roles in both stories overall. In the case above, Mrs. Todd, who also have a large figure and the way of showing affection somewhat more masculine than feminine, is indicating the importance of the doctor getting her support in order to take care of the townspeople, making the women as important as the men. In Mama Day, Miranda is also shown to have a high respect in her town and a irrational power--a power much greater than what the men has in the novel. Both stories magnificently hint women's power. Do the art works portray the superiority of women over men, written in order to support a theory exceeding the feminist one, or did they want to signify the importance of women's role and its maternal qualities in the society? What kind of qualities of women apply to them so that they are kind of a sacred being? Except for the giving of birth to children, what are their significant qualities? Do the stories indicate the importance of men and women shaking hands and working together? If so how? In what way? What would be the most efficient way of the two genders cooperating with each other?

The Use of Force on an Animal

"The child was fairly eating me up with her cold, steady eyes, and no expression to her face whatever. She did not move and seemed, inwardly, quiet; an unusually attractive little thing, and as strong as a heifer in appearance. but her face was flushed, she was breathing rapidly, and I realized that she had a high fever. She had magnificent blonde hair, in profusion. One of those picture children often reproduced in advertising leaflets and the photogravure sections of the Sunday papers...I have already fallen in love with the savage brat...But now I also had grown furious-at a child...I tried to hold myself down but I couldn't..."(Bohner and Grant 1170-172).

In "The Use of Force" by William Carlos Williams, while a lot of people interpreted the doctor's feeling towards the girl more of a luscious one, making the doctor a kind of a pediphile figure and the act as rape-like. However, I took his feeling more like a feeling a person might have towards an animal-as if the girl is one. When he first saw her and the girl was eating him up with her eyes, it was as if an animal, especially one that would be a pet, was deeply observing him. The way he thinks how she has magnificent hair and so forth is as if he is talking about a beautiful doll-as if he is dehumanizing the figure. He feels the want to force the investigation of her throat, like the feeling of wanting to get control over his/her pet or an animal. It is like the determination one has when he/she decides to do anything to get control over an animal. Although I was thinking of the animal being more dog-like than anything else, I think it could be anything. Anyhow, I felt that the doctor wasn't feeling pleasure for the girl, but he was more dehumanizing the girl. The mother and the father was annoying to him because he thought he is able to control the "animal" and their talking was interfering with his process. Because she was dehumanized in his eyes, he was able to force the examination.

The Moment

"'Nemo me impune lacessit.'
'Good!' he said" (Bohner and Grant 937).

"The Cask of Amontillado" written by Edgar Allan Poe is full of incredible elements that astonish a lot of the readers. One of the ways he does that is by playing with the readers' mind, which he also does in so many different ways. However, one part that made me feel the awesomeness was when Fortunato says "Good" when Montresor tells him their family motto. This short story starts with Montresor's vow of revenging on his friend who had given Montresor "thousand injuries" (Bohner and Grant 935). Hence, the image of Fortunato being a "bad" guy, along with the image of Montresor as a kind of a heroic figure-like Hamlet-was implanted in me. As the story moves on, Montresor's statement gets less and less authoritative as if he is a crazy person. This part of the story especially emphasizes the fact: it completely changes our view of both men. If Fortunato did something wrong, it wouldn't have been severe. Maybe it was for Montresor, but it may have been solved if he just told him. Fortunato seem to have no clue that he have offended his friend because he has no hesitation or awkwardness in saying that Montresor's family motto, which simply says that he would get back on someone who offends him, is good. He doesn't suspect anything nor decide to go back up. Fortunato's sense of innocence is brought and the reader is somewhat baffled. Montresor does not seem to have a good enough reason to convey vengeance on his friend. This takes away the whole conflict of "should I" or "should I not" appearing in Hamlet as Hamlet suffers through anxiety of if it is really okay for him to kill his uncle. Montresor, at least in the story, does not appear to have been through such thinking. Since he is lacking such "human" characteristic, he is crazy, at least more than Hamlet would be. Also, in Hamlet, we see Claudius confessing to himself that he have killed the king. In "The Cask of Amontillado," we could only see Montresor's feelings and Montresor's action. Because his actions are not valid anymore, this story as a whole is corrupted: we don't know to what extent the story is true (in the setting of the story). Why would Poe write in such way? I wonder if this is some kind of way in going against the popular novels and short stories.

Luck

"'Well anyhow,' he said stoutly, 'I'm a lucky person'"(Bohner and Grant 711).

In "The Rocking-Horse Winner" by D.H. Lawrence, Paul's mother explains to him the if one has luck, the person would "always get more money" (Bohner and Grant 710). Paul identifies himself, to his mother, as being lucky, and surely, after that, he starts winning money in horse races. When he had arranged to give the money to his mother, he said, "I shouldn't like Mother to know I was lucky...[because] she'd stop me" (Bohner and Grant 715). This is curious because his mother wanted more money, and in order to get them constantly, she describes, one needs luck. Wouldn't she be happy if her son was lucky and he got money persistently? Anyhow, he does not tell his mother: possibly because he doesn't want to make her envious of him or because he has a feeling, if not conscious, superconscious, that there is something wrong with this "luck."

Nevertheless, his life doesn't seem to get well, and except for the fact that he was winning at the races, he seemed to get crazier and crazier until he dies. Was he really lucky if he wasn't achieving happiness which he thought he would be able to attain once he got "lucky" and started winning money? He even died by achieving the "luck." Was Paul really lucky? Was this an illusion or a quality he had achieved in exchange of a compensation-his life? What is luck? Is it necessarily "good"? Having too much luck could be scary because it could be a premonition of something "bad" happening. Are we, as human beings, actually happier with luck or without luck?

A Good Man is Hard to Find...Or is It Possible?

"A good man is hard to find..." (Bohner and Grant 907).



The title of the short story by Flannery O'Connor and the phrase Red Sam gives on page 907, indicates that a good man is difficult to find...if there is such thing as "a good man." I think this is a foolish statement. What is a good man? Is a man good if he treats everyone else well? Is he good if he is patriotic? Is he good if he lies for a good purpose or if he says the truth for a bad purpose? If there is such thing as "good man," there would not be any universal concept. Different cultures...different people have different understanding of what a good man is.

Anyhow, there is no such thing as a "good" man or a "bad" man. It is undoubtedly impossible to identify a person as one or the other. Human have both qualities, not specifically meaning anything good nor bad, that balance out each person. We don't live in a fairy tale world where everything is black and white. Although some people may have more of one quality than the other, that doesn't make the person good or bad. A person has too many qualities, that it is impossible to explain in one word. Also bad qualities can be good in some circumstances and vice versa. In other words, the environment makes one quality look good or bad and even one quality cannot be completely defined as being good nor bad.

A good man is not hard to find...they are impossible to find. It is impossible to classify one person with one word. A person is so much worth than one adjective.