Lorrie Moore's collection of stories reveal large sections of their characters' being. She does this relaying their various actions (typical for any story) with terse and direct statements, but more importantly, their thoughts as well to the reader. It all provides a very personal look into each person, and causes each to seem rather fluttered and poorly put together. In general, Moore's characters seem to pursue several nonsensical routes every story, with a number of equally strange thoughts to pair. I don't have many more overarching views on the book, so I'll look over a few of the stories, point out an example of these effects in each, along with any more specific thoughts.
"How to Be an Other Woman's" entire premise opposes my thoughts on what should be done in Charlene's situation, but it would be too easy to simply to claim being a moral person against adultery. Instead, Charlene's aimless life demonstrates the previously mentioned characteristics of Moore's characters. Her life revolves around an illegitimate relationship, with even lunches at work being centered around the topic, randomly adopting the "wife's" habit of making lists, while admitting herself she's skating through it without an idea of what to do ("What are you going to do? I don't know").
"How" again revolves to a degree around an affair, although this time in the position of the man in "How to Be Another Woman". Again, you have your typical disgust with doing such a thing, but this time, the affair seems to the be the result of indecisiveness. The girl simply cannot decide what to do about a failing relationship, and as a result chooses the least desirable path of all. She gains neither the satisfaction of freedom from the poor relationship, nor any fulfillment from her current relationship.
"How to Become a Writer" has perhaps the strangest protagonist of all. Not many of her actions seem to have a purpose (making anagrams of her boyfriend's old girlfriend's name, copying friends' addresses), which paired with her insistence on a ludicrous topic for her writing, does not paint a pleasant character. Her directionlessness and what is effectively giving up at the end of the book ("Quit classes. Quit jobs. Cash in savings bonds") is the most prominent example of a Moore character.
Moore's characters altogether seem like rudderless, empty packages of strange behavior. Their actions don't make sense, they don't seem to do anything with a purpose, and many have incredibly bland personality.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Smart Kids
For Esme:--with Love and Squalor was by far my favorite story among the nine we've been reading, and I have many thoughts on the main structure of adult-child interaction.
I've noticed there's pretty much two ways adults interact with children (13 and before I'm saying, otherwise you're getting the "Where are you going to college?" and "What are you majoring in?" pair). One would be the more commonly employed super patronizing "I'll say Oh yeah? and reaaaallly a few times before I find someone my age." Then there is simply talking as if the other is a typical person. It makes sense; often the first technique is used simply because of necessity. You simply can't have normal conversations with a lot of kids because what they say isn't compatible. However, the latter can be used more when talking to the hyper-mature, hyper-intelligent kids, of which I've also split into two categories, one which Esme falls into. Accordingly, Sergeant X uses the second style of conversation.
I noted in class that Esme represented why many (including me) believe girls mature faster, at least in some ways. She clearly is the manager between the siblings, with Charles bending to her will, and she easily keeps up in conversation with X. Observant (I have a title and you may just be impressed by titles. Americans are, you know.") and articulate (just given her rapid fire speech with adult vocabulary, even X notes with "I imagined her father had had quite an extraordinary vocabulary"), Esme really fits the bill.
I enjoyed Esme for that and other reasons I will continue on when I make a comparison. On first reading, I didn't know she was the one inviting the wedding at the beginning, but when I realized X failed to make it, I was exceedingly disappointed. I desperately wanted to see more of Esme and how she progressed, and perhaps what sort of guy could keep up with her.
Moving backwards, one might respond to my girls mature faster point with Salinger's own example of Teddy. Another precocious child, Teddy nevertheless lacks all of the charisma that made Esme so endearing. He is an utter pest to his father and a maddening self-righteousness about spirituality. He's perhaps reached the range of "too smart", and possibly given the ending "too smart for his own good". It's in the social skills that separates the young gifted girls and guys for me (except for me. I was always the picture of charm).
I've noticed there's pretty much two ways adults interact with children (13 and before I'm saying, otherwise you're getting the "Where are you going to college?" and "What are you majoring in?" pair). One would be the more commonly employed super patronizing "I'll say Oh yeah? and reaaaallly a few times before I find someone my age." Then there is simply talking as if the other is a typical person. It makes sense; often the first technique is used simply because of necessity. You simply can't have normal conversations with a lot of kids because what they say isn't compatible. However, the latter can be used more when talking to the hyper-mature, hyper-intelligent kids, of which I've also split into two categories, one which Esme falls into. Accordingly, Sergeant X uses the second style of conversation.
I noted in class that Esme represented why many (including me) believe girls mature faster, at least in some ways. She clearly is the manager between the siblings, with Charles bending to her will, and she easily keeps up in conversation with X. Observant (I have a title and you may just be impressed by titles. Americans are, you know.") and articulate (just given her rapid fire speech with adult vocabulary, even X notes with "I imagined her father had had quite an extraordinary vocabulary"), Esme really fits the bill.
I enjoyed Esme for that and other reasons I will continue on when I make a comparison. On first reading, I didn't know she was the one inviting the wedding at the beginning, but when I realized X failed to make it, I was exceedingly disappointed. I desperately wanted to see more of Esme and how she progressed, and perhaps what sort of guy could keep up with her.
Moving backwards, one might respond to my girls mature faster point with Salinger's own example of Teddy. Another precocious child, Teddy nevertheless lacks all of the charisma that made Esme so endearing. He is an utter pest to his father and a maddening self-righteousness about spirituality. He's perhaps reached the range of "too smart", and possibly given the ending "too smart for his own good". It's in the social skills that separates the young gifted girls and guys for me (except for me. I was always the picture of charm).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)