The Best Rough Draft Ever Written

How often does one encounter the expression "better safe than sorry" in a lifetime? People are constantly being urged to take precautions in countless situations. Ron Carlson's "Milk" is about an individual who refuses to take a precaution that the other people in his life insist is important. Taking a precaution requires one to admit the possibility that something unwanted or terrible could happen and the narrator of this story is the first to be affected by this fact. In this case the narrator is being pressured to allow his toddler sons to be fingerprinted. His refusal to have his twins fingerprints taken is at the core of the conflict of the short story. At first glance, the conflict of "Milk" seems to be between the narrator and his wife and his mother, but it becomes evident that the more important conflict occurs within the narrator. The narrator is resisting a fear that is inevitable for parents: What if something happens to my children? The importance of this internal conflict is shaped and supported by the reactions of other characters to the narrator's actions, the symbolism of objects that affect the narrator, and the narrator's epiphany in the conclusion of the story.
The reactions of other characters to the narrator are some of the first indications that an internal conflict is dominating the plot of the story. When the narrator refuses via phone call to allow his wife and mother to have his children fingerprinted, he claims says that he is "not caving into this raging paranoia. It's a better world than people think" (66). His wife Ann is the first to see through her husband. She says "I'm going to tell your mother that you're terrified and unable at this time to do the right thing" (66). The narrator doesn't want to admit that the reason he doesn't allow fingerprints is because he is afraid. The fear and paranoia that are motivating people to fingerprint their children is the very thing that the narrator criticizes and uses as his own excuse not to follow in their footsteps. It is ironic that he is experiencing this fear as well, and on an even higher level than most. Ann's reaction is the first clue that her husband is struggling with extreme fears of his own. When the narrator ends the phone call with his wife, his coworker Phyllis has a similar reaction to Ann. She replies to his claim that the world is a safer place than people think with a sarcastic "and you're not scared in the least, are you?" (66). These initial reactions to the narrator show that everyone around him knows that he is afraid for the safety of his children but is unwilling to admit it. Denying this fear is a defense mechanism for the narrator which further complicates his internal conflict. Until he is able to admit that he is afraid he is unable to take any steps toward a resolution.
The relationship between the narrator and Ann also contributes to the internal conflict. Ann is frustrated with her husband but is playful in her confrontations with him. The couple has always been opposed to rules in their home, but now the narrator feels a strong need for them. Because of this change in character which also adds to the internal conflict, Ann makes jokes about her husband becoming this way. When he returns home from work she says to her children "Well, boys, it's Daddy, the Rulemaker" She also calls him the "lawgiver" and imitates him (67). It is especially playful when she presses her nose to him and kisses him in the middle of her impression. This scene shows that Ann is frustrated, but is also aware of the fact that her husband's rule is in response to an intense love and concern for the well being of their children. There is a sense of understanding in the middle of the disagreement. Ann understands where the narrator is coming from, and the narrator knows that fingerprints could help to ensure the safety of his sons. Regardless of this understanding, the narrator can't bring himself to believe in the reality of his children being in any kind of danger. This danger is presented to him regularly by symbols.
Symbolism is a powerful fuel to the narrator's fears. The most influential symbols in "Milk" are the milk cartons. Each carton of the brand of milk that the narrator's household uses has the profile of a missing child on the back. These children are haunting for the narrator, and the milk cartons become a literary symbol of his worst fear. The profiles of the missing children show up in places that he would never expect them to be. He talks about their invasion into his life. He says "The photographs themselves assumed a lurid, tabloid quality, and every time I opened the fridge they scared me" (69). The narrator is desperately trying to escape the fear that something could happen to his kids but he has constant reminders surrounding him. He even finds missing children on the back of a weekly mailer and again on a comic book.
The narrator comes to terms with his internal conflict and admits his fears at the end of the story. When he returns home to find that his sons fingerprints were taken against his wishes he takes the boys out for a ride in the car. His thoughts during this scene are of the loss of safety and security in the world. The fact that the twins have already been fingerprinted forces the narrator to address his inner thoughts. There is no fighting his fears anymore once the precaution has been taken. He realizes how afraid he has become since having his children. He says "we have always felt safe until the boys arrived, and now I am afraid of everything" (75). Admitting that he is paranoid allows the sense of resolution to take over the conclusion of the story. Until this point it has been frustrating for the reader that he couldn't just admit that he was afraid. Although the conflict isn't fully resolved because the fear for his children will always be there, at least we are given a sense of understanding within the narrator.

Essay Topic

For the essay assignment I would like to focus on aspects of "Milk". I am drawn to this story because it is about an over protective father and my parents were very nervous and worried people when I was a child. I would like to dig deeper into the story using different terms and concepts of literature and narratives. I will also examine the structure of the story. I want to really get to know the narrator and search the text for clues about who he is as a person and as a father and husband. I still need to reread the story several times , but I think my paper will mostly focus on those clues about the narrator. I will also be on a search for symbolism, which I think is abundant in this story. The milk cartons and fingerprints are obvious symbols but I think there may be more than these in the text. I am excited to work with this story!

Here's a new idea: Let's read about dead fathers!

So we're doing the dying father thing again eh? Okay. I actually felt like I could enjoy this text's message about the death of a father. I think that Zadie Smith really wanted to address this issue in a new light, so I'm not complaining. Harvey's death as well as pretty much everything else in this essay, is viewed as comedy. I agree with Smith that everything can be seen in a comedic way and I was interested in this essay's attempt to do so. I don't think, however, that death is the most important message presented in the article.
Smith wanted to share perceptions about comedy with the reader. She wanted to show us first of all that comedy was the only thing she had in common with her father. She seems to love her father's sense of humor which focused on finding the humor in sadness and despair. Harvey's children have inherited this sense of humor. Smith goes on to give examples of comedians that she loves for this type of humor. She talks about loving comedy for what's beneath the surface. When Harvey died Smith wanted to find humor in his death because comedy was what she shared with her father. She mentions many times that she kept his ashes on her desk in a plastic tupperware for a year after he died.
The most interesting aspect of this article for me was Zadie Smith's thoughts on comedians versus novelists. She talks about the way a comedian has perfected his act and says "I couldn’t help being struck by the sense that what it might take a novelist a lifetime to achieve, a bright comedian can resolve in three seasons. (How to present a working-class experience to the middle classes without diluting it. How to stay angry without letting anger distort your work. How to be funny about the most serious things.)" I thought this was a really interesting thought because it holds a lot of truth. Writers aren't nearly as versatile as stand-up comedians because they don't need to be. The career of a comedian requires quick thinking on how to perfect an act. A comedian is either funny or not and if flaws in an act aren't addressed quickly a comedian might fail. On the other hand, a novelist cannot quickly perfect a novel if the public doesn't respond well to it.
Zadie Smith's article seems to say (as cliche as it may sound) not to take life too seriously. She shows the reader ways to apply comedy to life and also addresses comedy in its most obvious form. She tells the reader of the importance of humor in her life. And let's be honest, where would we be without it in ours?

How to Talk to Your Mother

In Moore's How to Talk to Your Mother, the story of a woman's life and relationship with her mother is told backwards from a couple years after her mother's death. This technique is the cause of an unusual emotional experience. Learning about the death of the woman's mother first was interesting because we don't yet know anything about her. But as I approached the end of the story and beginning of the narrator's life, I already knew what happens later in her life. It was a similar feeling to that of reading the last chapter of a book before beginning the story. Things are perceived differently when the mystery of the ending is taken out of the mix.

The title suggests that the story is a how to article. To me the title and the story itself is showing that had the narrator known about what her relationship with her mother would become later in life, she wouldn't have talked to her the way she did when she was young. I think this is an important message that the author wanted to get across. People think that individuals in their lives will always be there, and they tend to be unappreciated.

I think the strategy used in this story was extremely effective. I attempted to read the story over again from the beginning of the narrator's life and it wasn't nearly as interesting.

Greasy Lake

Greasy Lake is structured in a way that is pretty standard for narratives. The story is written in first person with a nineteen year old guy as the narrator. The exposition is filled with statements about how "bad" the narrator and his friends Digby and Jeff are. We also learn during the exposition that the guys are riding around in the narrator's mother's car in early June. They're pretty bored until they see what they think is the car of a guy they know at Greasy Lake. We also get the impression that the guys hang out at Greasy Lake a lot. It seems to be a local hang out spot for young people who are "bad". After all of this is established, the guys approach the car that they think belongs to a friend named Tony Lovett. The action begins to rise as a greasy man gets out of the car who is not Tony Lovett. There is a fight between the guys. The climax in a lot of stories seems to be negotiable. I think the climax could occur when the narrator gets the tire iron out of his car, because at that point the fight becomes much more dangerous than just a fight. I also felt that it could occur when the guys try to rape the "fox" who was in the car or even when the other guys show up and the narrator and his friends hide because there is a shift of power involved. Finally, I felt like the narrator finding the dead guy in the lake could have been the climax. Each event seemed like the climax as it was happening because the situation just kept getting worse. Or maybe I'm just clueless.
After the guys leave and the narrator and his friends can come out from hide the action begins to fall. They see some girls who ask for the dead guy and over them drugs, evaluate the damage done to the narrator's mom's car, and leave. The story is concluded with an image of the girl, whose friend is lying dead in the lake, with a hand outstretched toward the car as they drive away.

The House on Mango Street is a story that addresses an issue of poverty. I believe that the story is expressing the frustration of the often unachievable American dream. The story is told from the perspective of a child whose family has little money and is forced to move every year. The parents of this family have always dreamed of owning their own home and they have expressed this dream in detail to their children. The family wants a home with running water, real stairs "like the houses on T.V.", a basement, three washrooms, and a great big yard. We know right away that the family doesn't have much money because of the description of the flat on Loomis, so the thought of them owning a home that has these amenities is an unrealistic one.
The family buys the house on Mango Street, but the narrator is not impressed. After all of the dreaming out loud that the parents have done in front of their children this was not what they expected at all. The description of the house is a telling one that is filled with disappointment. The house is small and red (not white) with a small yard and small steps in front. The narrator also says the house has "windows so small you'd think they were holding their breath." All of these statements contribute to the idea of the house being very small and cramped, especially for a large family. The personifying statement about the windows seems to be saying that they aren't letting any air into the house; the narrator might feel like she can't breathe when she's inside. On top of this the door is "so swollen you have to push hard to get in." This statement says that the house is not a welcoming home for the child. She feels almost as if she cannot enter her home.
The story about the nun coming by the narrator's old home and asking her where she lives represents the way society encourages people to reach for the American dream by judging individuals based upon the places in which they live. The narrator hates her new home even though it may be better than her previous ones because it can't measure up to the dream. In the end of the story when the narrator talks about how the house on mango street is supposed to be temporary, she says "but I know how those things go." At first I thought this meant that she felt they would be in that house forever. But then I thought she might be expressing the thought that her family will never move up from houses like this one. Even if she continues to move every year, her family is stuck in a level of poverty that restricts them to this type of home.
I may have possibly just written a blog post longer than the story itself.

Comparison of "Catastrophe"--- A little late

Even though I had some technical difficulties with the video of "Catastrophe" and was unable to see it until after this post was due, I figured I should at least post my initial observations on the written version of the play and the video and then proceed to pray for credit.
While viewing the film in class yesterday the most significant aspect that I noticed was the way the camera deprived the audience of a view of P's face. I did feel that this was interesting because I think that had the play version been able to deprive us of this view it would have gotten across the point that much better. Despite the point of this technique I found it very frustrating to be unable to see P until the end of the play. The other difference that I noted was of course the situation with the hands. While in the play the hands were clasped by A, in the film P is made to point his finger. I wasn't sure what to make of this but the ideas of my peers were helpful when we discussed it after the film was over. The final difference that I noticed was the replacement of the cigar with a flashlight in the film. I personally felt that this took away from the piece and was rather confused why the director chose to do it this way.
I did not notice the difference in what the assistant of director was wearing until it was brought up in discussion but I found it interesting that this difference occured. I don't understand why the director changed so many important things in the film, but I know he must have done it for his own reasons. I personally feel that the video has nothing on the vision that I created in my mind when I read the play, but then isn't that how it always works? It seems that written pieces are nine times out of ten more enjoyable than the films that they inspire.