Friday, September 26, 2008
The two incidents
How do you interpret the inclusion of these two scenes: the narrator as a little girl in the greenhouse with the old man who apparently has sexual designs on her, and the narrator as an older woman with the visiting foreign scientist who believes her kindness is a sexual design? She even used the same word, "Prase" or "pig," with the latter as her grandpa did with the former.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was a bit confused by the latter scene. What were her intentions? I thought the text hinted that she was taking a romantic interest in Sebastian.
First, her depression lifted. And, as part of that, she "dressed in bright colors, busy cleaning the house from basement to attic and working in the garden."
Second, aren't those things the same sort of things she did to show her love to her husband throughout their lives (until her depression)? Is she dressing, cleaning, and gardening to show love to Sebastian?
Third, telling the story to Sebastian. How much of it was not being able to "bear to listen to him tell that story badly one more time," and how much of it was wanting to impress Sebastian? When she later said she told it "simply for the sake of hearing that story told well once," are we to believe her?
Fourth, telling Sebastian the part of the story she had never told her husband. And this one may not be evidence that she had feelings for him -- because she may have really only answered because she was finally asked -- but his asking and her answering certainly drew her closer to him.
And then, of course, there's the climax of their relationship:
But before he could tell me his anecdote I leaned toward him and rested my hand on his forearm. His skin was as smooth as a flower. "Don't tell me any more science," I said. "Tell me about yourself."
Isn't there some romantic motivation there? Even if she is just being kind and friendly, isn't she feeling something?
When she said, "Prase," of course we're supposed to see parallels between the situations. But what are they? I hate to even suggest it, but my first thought was that she was drawing parallels between her behavior and that of Leiniger. That can't be right, but what else could it be?
Good points.
I couldn't really tell whether she liked him romantically or whether she just liked the excitement of having a new person in their environment. His being around made her life less ordinary, and she seemed kind of starved for novelty.
I got the impression that her domestic habits were not a way of showing love really, but were just what was expected of her.
I think we are to believe her that he told the story badly. I got the impression that he managed to tell the story in a way that somehow reflected glory on himself and that that disgusted her. Didn't you have the sense that he was a pretty mediocre scientist and that he latched onto the Mendel connection to bolster his image?
I think he also chose a wife who was smart enough to "get" him, i.e., who could feed his ego, but also docile enough to be content to just look after him, to be a "university wife." He didn't really understand that she was not content.
I still don't know what to make of her "prase" comment — if she felt she was being piggish for making what was or what could be mistaken for a sexual advance or if she felt Sebastian was being piggish in mistaking her simple loneliness for sexual interest, or possibly that she felt a sense of disgust that he rejected her.
I wasn't sure about her intentions toward Sebastian. I could see it either way.
I definitely believed her about the way her husband told the story. I had the same take as kc: He told it in a self-aggrandizing way that disgusted her. It was her story, after all, her beloved grandfather's story. And she probably felt somewhat disgusted with herself for having used it so carelessly to impress a man she now wishes she hadn't wanted so badly.
The "prase" comment is clearly meant to draw some kind of connection to the earlier story, but I'm a bit perplexed by it.
Post a Comment