Friday, January 14, 2011

The tapestry

The Deacon of the Covenant Church shows Roger a carpet with a woven pattern and points out that from the back, the design can't be seen; it's a jumble of yarn and knots. He implies that there is a hidden pattern to life and that there may be some special role for the Ashley family in the design of the world.

Then the book ends like this:

There is much talk of a design in the arras. Some are certain they see it. Some see what they have been told to see. Some remember that they saw it once but have lost it. Some are strengthened by seeing a pattern wherein the oppressed and exploited of the earth are gradually emerging from their bondage. Some find strength in the conviction that there is nothing to see. Some

What do you think is the message? Why the dangling "some"?
Posted by at

4 comments:

kc said...

I honestly don't know what to make of the dangling "Some." It's almost like an infinity sign or something, like the sentences beginning with "some" can go on and on, there's so much diversity in human interpretations. It just wasn't clear to me.

I did like the carpet metaphor, how interpretation depends so much on perspective.

11:59 AM, January 18, 2011
cl said...

The tapestry seemed to be what Wilder built the whole novel around -- this exploration of whether God or fate or chance were at hand for what befalls people. Overall I thought Wilder went the divine providence route, albeit not in an overly moralizing way.

I scratched my head at first over the importance of the shooting -- a man shoots his neighbor, possibly a dispute over a woman -- until the story delved into what became of the children. Lily, Roger, Constance and George go on to great works seen or felt all over the world. Maybe they would or wouldn't have gone on to do what they did if they'd led normal lives. John Ashley heads to an impoverished nation and improves working conditions and saves lives.

I don't know whether that's the author's idea of God's hand or coincidence or what -- I mean, because of the title, I assume it's all supposed to seem somewhat providential. But it's not heavy on moralizing. What the author thought of it all is hard to say. There isn't some parable at hand about the greatest good for the greatest number. All the good people in the story aren't rewarded somehow. Sofia, obviously, kept the fire burning early to keep everyone going and then mentally died out once her purpose was served. Roger and Felicite are good folks who serve a purpose, but toward the end the narrative alludes to the idea that they have a child, Johnny, who will become a great source of anguish. Olga did a great deal for both families while stranded in America, but I'm not sure she made it home ever, did she? So no one is dealt or keeps a fine hand of cards. But they also don't fly solo, because whatever they do or don't do will have a consequence somewhere down the line.

3:42 PM, January 18, 2011
Erin said...

Excellent thoughts. I think you're right, cl, about the novel's theme of fate or providence or whatever. It's true that the children became famous and made an impact on the world, but it wasn't all roses for them. But as the Deacon says, you never know when a messiah might rise out of a family. He saw some kind of potential in the Ashley family for greatness, maybe this generation, maybe the next.

I think you're probably right about the "some," kc. It's like because the universe is so unknown, you could go on and on forever about what "some" believe. And you'd still never really know the answer.

5:10 PM, January 18, 2011
kc said...

Good points, cl.

I think Olga did make it back to Russia. I think a couple of passages alluded to that.

And what happened to Sophie, exactly? I thought it was weird how she was so prominent in the early part of the book and her ultimate "fate" is just kind of mentioned in passing and not with much clarity.

5:12 PM, January 18, 2011

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)