Hola todos! Salut tout le monde!
I need to mention something before I start writing about this week’s reading. No matter how much I love theory, I’m not quite sure how to apply it to this story (yet), I guess it’s a good thing that I don’t know it all, that means I’ll definitely learn in this class :)
Having said that I’m just going to tell you about my thoughts and some reflections on the story. My reaction to Chicot’s description was, ‘wow… Maupassant is good’ He presents the same character in two different ways in such a short story: as a friendly man who cares about the elderly lady, while still wanting to get something from her, to a businessman who has such intense hatred for the same lady who, by living, stands in the way of his profit, and so he is willing to do anything to rid himself of her presence.
Another important point that is worth mentioning is the irony of the old lady’s reactions in two situations: at the beginning she is suspicious of the innkeeper and his offer, which shows that she is not all that naïve, however, when Chicot invites her for dinner and he offers her liqueur, and not just any the special expensive kind, she does not show any doubts or suspicion, even when he goes as far as offering her some to take home and saying: “The sooner it is finished the better pleased I shall be”.
The main point of the story that really got my attention is that both characters can be seen as victims as well as criminals, although not at the same level. The old lady, when she is happy with the deal, with the increase of the price of course, in order to convince Chicot she pretends not to be feeling well, she says “The other evening I thought I was going to die, and could hardly manage to crawl into bed” so she uses deception to reach her goal, while he does the same by tempting her with alcohol until she dies of overdrinking. Yes I know, obviously causing her death is a bigger sin, but we don’t really have a ‘good guy’ and a ‘bad guy’ in this story. They’re both evil to some degree.
Alright, that’s all I’ve got for now.
I don’t think this was very ‘theoretical’, sorry to disappoint you all, hopefully tomorrow will help me for the next blog, so stay tuned to witness my improvement :) (Ideally it will happen)
What would a "theoretical" approach look like, and how would it differ from your own? What would make it "theoretical"? What makes what you've written *un*theoretical?
ReplyDeleteHi Jon,
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely what I would like to know actually. But basically I got that feel from some of the other blogs that I read which, as someone mentioned, mostly use words with "isme" at the end.
But then I think you can help me more in figuring out what's really 'theoretical' or not.
Thanks :)
Heh. Well, to put it another way: do you think that my post on Maupassant is "theoretical"? It does have a couple of "isms": well, just one I think, capitalism. Does that make it theoretical? If not, what does? Or what fails to make it theoretical?
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, for me I think it's more important that you (we) think about what you (we) are doing when we read. If that makes us "theoretical," then so be it. And if it doesn't, then that's OK, too.
I like your comment that both can be seen as victims as well as criminals - I hadn't used either word yet in my head, but I agree that they are both victims in the 'bigger picture' - where profit is seen as the all important goal. It takes a strong person to not get sucked into that view. Though having said that, I am generally not keen to view people as victims... strength of character to resist this assumption is maybe what's lacking in both these characters.
ReplyDeleteRE: what's 'theoretical'? I guess we can easily apply theoretical frameworks to the story, but it's pointless to do it for the sake of it...as Jon comments, more interesting is to be aware of how/what we are reading!
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the terms "criminal"and "evil" in relation to the two characters. There wasn't anything inherently criminal about Chicot's actions. Were they devious and deceitful? Yes (but so were my mother's actions when hiding the vegetables on my plate under a pile of cheese when I was little!)Criminal, that's very debatable. Is McDonald a criminal organization for serving fast food that is likely to cause health complications (and possible deaths) in people who overindulged? As for evil well what is evil?
ReplyDeleteSara and Jon, after today's discussion I understand better what you are saying about the issue of what is theoretical and whether or not it matters. Thanks for the comments :)
ReplyDeleteMarie, yes I do believe McDonald is a criminal organization because they don't just serve fast food, they use other ingredients that are harmful and there are actually cases that went to court and won against McDonald but that's not exactly the point. The point is, if your mother had fed you those veggies thinking that they were going to cause your death, yes that would have been criminal as well.
Drinking doesn't cause death. Overdrinking does. And it is the responsibility of the adult drinker to make sure the he/she doesn't drink himself/herself to death. Chicot may have given Mother Magloire a cask but he did not coerce her into abusing, he just played to her weakness. That is not criminal. If the cask had some hidden ingredient that would have poison her then it would have been criminal. At the end of the day, it's about personal responsibilty. Was Chicot's action ethically wrong? Yes. Criminal, definitly not. No courts or jury in the world could charge Chicot with a guilty verdict, not even second-degree murder. Ultimately, it was her decision to accept the cask and keep on drinking. Unless "criminal" is used as a metaphor or as a synonym for "shameful, disgraceful or unethical",I don't see how Chicot or Magloire's behaviors qualify as being criminal (illegal, felonious, illegitimate, related to a crime).
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Marie, I think we discussed this enough in class. I'm working on the next blog so we will have new material to discuss :)
ReplyDelete