Home Alone

After some thought, and seeing just how Benji and Reggie's life is, I'm debating just how their home life affected them and if it was really a good or bad thing. Specifically, the fact that they are left alone all week for nearly every week of the Summer. I'm on edge with whether or not them being home all alone is a good or bad thing considering their home life.

In general, Benji and Reggie seem to have their life in order alone during the week what with having their own jobs and being functional human beings. They seem to get along with the other kids in Sag Harbor and are establishing their own identities through emerging cultures. They also don't seem to mind not having their parents around for a variety of reasons. With this however, whatever lessons their parents gave them (however many or few that actually is) aren't enforced and they are left to figure out how to deal with life by themselves. Normally I'd say this can be acceptable for parenting, letting the children figure out life by themselves, but not to this extent. Without either parent at home for a significant period of time over the Summer, there isn't much opportunity to form better relations within the family and at certain periods, this really shows. Part of this disconnect can be based off of previous years, as Ben mentions later in the novel when the cookout is described, but I'd say that due to experiences like the cookout, moments like that every once in a while don't really chalk up to a functional family.

To me there really isn't a clear distinction to whether or not being left alone most of the Summer is a good or bad thing because each has valid reasons I think. Being left alone means that Benji and Reggie are able to determine their direction over the course of the Summer, be able to get a chance to be independent and self-sustaining, and get time away form what seems to be an abusive father. Being left alone also means that can't form an effective relationship with their parents over the course of the Summer which most likely would affect the time to come, have to artificially be of age and control their own life (debatable if this is a negative or positive), and have little positive parental influence. To Benji and Reggie, they're quite fine with being left to their own devices as Ben hardly mentions his parents until the chapter where it is explicitly about them. Maybe in the future Ben regrets this as he brings up the point of not knowing why they never defended their mother from their father, but at the time, they seemed content about having no parents around for the extended time that they were away.  

 

The Tale of a Wallet

                Serious moral dilemma time in the book. Aren’t moral dilemmas just so much fun?! More seriously though, I like to view situations like these from many angles, so having a whole chapter related to a moral dilemma of Jason’s was an interesting read. To preface all of this, I feel the need to state my final opinion on the subject because bias will show up. I agree with Jason giving the wallet back in the end, however I don’t agree with the reasons why Jason kept the wallet in the first place (the whole keeping because of complete spite). I just want to take a look at the scene in a way I read it and compare it to the rest of Jason’s decisions on a scale of sorts.

                Taking the side of moral high ground, I’ll take a bit of a look at the situation. Initially, Jason does take a moment to contemplate giving the wallet back, which in itself is a good choice. It kind of goes south after that when he keeps the wallet out of spite once he sees it belongs to Ross Wilcox. It just seems petty to keep it for that one reason only and retcon his decision to give the wallet the fair grounds owner. At that point it really is stealing rather than keeping until you find the right person to give it to. Shortly after, he enjoys seeing Ross in a state of panic where he starts to make plenty of mistakes. It just seems wrong to get that much joy from the suffering of someone (Personal note: I don’t fully enjoy Ross’ panic, but there is some satisfaction there). Once he’s told that that wallet actually has hundreds of pounds in it, he gets some sense back and realizes that stealing Ross’ wallet really is an issue, but he’s still not thoroughly convinced he should give it back. He has reasons to use the money, but the ones he mentions really aren't for any other purpose other than personal gain. What makes it worse is that he’s told the consequences to Ross when he doesn’t bring the money back, he likes it; he really feels that it would be one of the best things that could ever happen to him. After a quick talk with his own dad, Jason is hit by sense again and he decides to finally give the wallet back as is. Morally, he ended in the right place, but it was a bit rocky getting there. Not the most satisfying way to think about the scene for many people because the ending of the incident also kind of makes the revenge seem less so there. It’s there and Ross does end up with some karma for his actions, but losing his leg is pretty harsh don’t you think?

                Now a look at the rest of his story that we’ve gotten. I’d say this incident would actually fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. The fact he spent as much time as he did between either giving the wallet back and keeping it is really what makes me put it there. I don’t blame him for wanting revenge and to be honest, the opportunity wasn’t that bad, but I just don’t agree with the amount of time he spent debating it. In the end though, the decision seems thoroughly Jason in that he does give it back but before then, a massive amount of thought that went into it. Can’t help but notice the logical Julia make a very visible impact on his thoughts and life.

Your Bridges are Burning Down

To say the least, the last two chapters of "Housekeeping" really threw some important events at us, whether they were expected or not. Ruth running away with Sylvie, being presumed dead, leaving all behind and moving on a truly transient lifestyle as well as finally cutting off all ties with Lucille. What really struck me though was in chapter 11 with the burning of possessions and the house before leaving Fingerbone for good. It's mentioned that they do it because the things they would be leaving behind were personal and either weren't good for anything when they were gone (they were sentimental things) or they just couldn't let others have them. Afterwords, they were forced to cross the bridge in order to leave Fingerbone without anyone finding them. Taking the visible parts of both of the acts, you get burning possessions and crossing a bridge, but in my mind, they both come together as one thing: "burning bridges".

They literally didn't burn down the bridge (that would be a plot twist!), but in the metaphorical sense that they are eliminating all ties to something. With the house, they are burning all of their belongings, which included family sentiments and memorabilia. These are all reminders and ties to the past and to their life there, while the house itself is the anchor. By burning it all, they are effectively severing all ties with Fingerbone as a place. The house not actually ending up burning down is besides the point; it's the act that really counts. The second part of "burning the bridges" is the crossing of the bridge. By crossing the bridge, they go to a place where the inhabitants of Fingerbone will never go, leaving them behind. With this, Ruth and Sylvie cut all ties with the people of Fingerbone. Their supposed deaths only solidify this truth; to Fingerbone, Ruth and Sylvie are now ghosts, taken away by the lake never to be found again like many before them. At this point Fingerbone has no more ties with Ruth and Sylvie apart from it being a place where they had once been, all bridges burned down now free to do whatever they want.

 (Side note, couldn't help but think these lyrics fit the post and moment perfectly, so here they are)

"Gather in the ashes (Your bridges are burning down)
Everything thrown away (They're all coming down)
Gather in the ashes(It's all coming round)

Scatter as they blow away" 

- Foo Fighters, "Bridge Burning"      

Beneath the Bell Jar

I’ve been noticing lots of people writing about Esther and her views as being trapped under a bell jar and I decided to throw in some things I've noticed as well. In post, after reading Esther’s feelings of her depressed state and feeling trapped beneath a bell jar, some of her interactions and descriptions make more sense. For starters, in class we talked about how Esther’s descriptions of other characters seem more like caricatures than reliable, realistic descriptions.

This could be a side effect of Esther looking at the outside world as if she were looking though a bell jar as they are made of glass and when looking through glass (especially curved glass) features of things on the other side get distorted and exaggerated which is exactly what happens to Esther’s caricature descriptions of other people. Doreen has a massive puffball head of hair as her defining physical characteristic, Dr. Gordon has his smile, and Dodo looks like two eggs stacked to Esther to give a few examples. This also extends to their personalities, but given Esther’s state it can be more difficult to tell just how true those are but for the most part they just seem exaggerated but true.

Esther also had some memorable interactions with this sort of distortion or at least the “observer/observed” dynamic that goes along with the concept of a bell jar. With bell jars normally being used in scientific fields for observation and killing, the concept fit extremely well. The tour of Yale with Buddy can be seen as an observation sort of interaction where Esther was observing, with the placid and critical eyes at the moment, the medical facilities. She was unfazed by the cadaver, babies in jars, and the facility itself and the only thing that tripped up that view was the birth. On the more grim side, Esther’s attempts at suicide could be seen as the “killing of the specimen” aspect of bell jars as she is trying to kill herself beneath the bell jar of her life. Of course it can’t be ruled out that Esther herself is being observed, literally, by doctors when she is being treated by both Dr. Gordon and Dr. Nolan. This makes the observation aspect of the bell jar go both ways and creates an interesting dynamic where Esther views the world from inside the glass and describes it to the reader and the outside observers seem like monsters, not understanding or caring explicitly what happens to the specimen (not applicable to all characters). Esther’s mother, as one of the observers, can’t quite grasp the totality of Esther’s situation and therefore thinks that when the bell jar is lifted from Esther’s life, she can return to it like nothing has happened. For Esther, that’s impossible, she’s experienced the feeling of being trapped and watched as well as the freedom on the outside, being able to also observe herself now that she is not in the midst of the bell jar. The stark contrast of the environments creates a memory for Esther that can never be forgotten. 

Holden's Coming of Age Conundrum

               Now that we’ve finished Catcher in the Rye, I my doubts on whether or not the “Coming of Age” part of the novel applies to Holden at all. As the book begins, Holden is reflecting back on a few days around Christmas time last year saying something crazy happened during that time. To me, that gives the sense that Holden went through something that was so momentous he can describe each day in detail to us readers. We all know he did go through some serious stuff, but he came out from those experiences pretty much as the same Holden Caulfield as the Holden who entered them. Every time someone tried to talk to him about being a part of the world and getting his life together he just shrugged off the thought of submitting to a phony world as he would put it. Mr. Spencer, Mr. Antolini, and even Phoebe were unable to make a change in him big enough for him to turn his life in another direction. I realize this is not the definition of coming of age (nobody really knows), but for Holden, I feel his coming of age would be when he finally decides to either try things in the world or just go and be secluded like he mentioned. He does neither of these. With all of that in mind, how then does this book count as a coming of age novel? Simple: the concept of coming of age.

                All of the talks given to Holden about his life and future are, in whole, conversations about coming of age. “What will you do when you grow up?” “Who do you want to be?” “Pull yourself together!” All of these are quintessential questions and statements of defining what it means when you come of age (ie what will it look like when you come of age?). Along these lines, Holden has an admiration for children and their simple and happy lives. When he’s near Phoebe for instance, he is quite content that she doesn’t need to worry about the real world yet. He’s happy she has yet to come of age. His metaphor for being a catcher in the rye fields saving kids from falling off a cliff is extremely vague, but I choose to see it as Holden saving the children from adulthood and thus coming of age because of his fascination with children and hatred of the phony adult world.  

Spiritual Rise, Worldly Fall

            Even though we briefly brought the topic up a week ago or so, the idea that Stephen seems to revert, in a way, to childhood again after becoming a devout Catholic intrigues me. It seems mildly ironic in a sense, that Stephen makes a decision of his own (which was a sign of him growing and becoming independent) to become the most devout Catholic the world has ever seen. In every sense, the decision Stephen made was one of spiritual growth. However, as he became more of a spiritual man, he seemed to lose his grip on the world around him, almost as if he forgets some of his worldly wisdom. He doesn’t care about his surroundings and what sort of beauty he can find in it as much as he used to. In addition, his language becomes simpler and he doesn’t go off on the trademark tangents that Stephen was so fond of making. In fact, it is very reminiscent of Stephen’s mind as a child at Clongowes.

            At Clongowes, Stephen was an innocent, simpler minded version of himself. He was very focused on doing whatever the “right thing” was, even though he might not know exactly why it was the right thing. A sort of faith in his decisions that they were the correct thing to do. It is almost exactly the same sort of behavior that Stephen exhibits when he decides to embrace Catholicism. A core aspect of Christianity in general is faith, the ability to trust in something you can’t see and don’t necessarily understand. Normally, this is trusting that God will get you out of a situation or put you in one, all you need to do is the “right thing”. Rarely is that even close to obvious, and oddly enough, Stephen’s younger self had just about as much knowledge on what the “right thing” or “right answer” was as any sort of faith decision: little to no clue. Also, possibly a coincidence, but the few times Stephen mentions that he knows the “right answer” as a child, he said he knew that because of his father and quite often God is referred to as Father and humans as the children. Aside from a faith in actions comparison, Stephen as a devout Catholic makes the conscious effort to be as pure and correct a person as he can be, which younger Stephen can easily be seen as a very innocent and mostly pure child. In the end, it’s almost as if Stephen has not only reverted to his younger self, but also fully embraced some of the aspects of his life that he intentionally threw away, like his innocence. Progress spiritually actually appeared to set back Stephen from maturing more in a worldly sense.         

Coming of Age in a (Personal) Nutshell

                Even though we had the discussion of what it really mean to “come of age” and what Coming-of-Age means, the whole concept has been taking up my thoughts since. Many ideas came up when the class talked about it, mostly revolving around the notion that when someone “comes of age”, it’s ultimately their thoughts of what it means to come of age that determines when they come of age. While I agree with most of this, I also think that to “come of age” personally is different than “coming of age” in a sense that the rest of the world would realize. For instance, if a child (say they are about 8 or so) decides they have grown up and feel like they have past the point in life where they consider they’ve “come of age”, would literally anyone else in the world see that as well? I mean, they’re 8 years old! Point being, if anyone older came along, the most likely outcome of the child saying they’ve “come of age” is disbelief and the pity of the older person who knows the child hasn’t even begun to experience what the real world is like. This isn’t to say that traumatic events, being forced to be older than you are (i.e. managing siblings for parents because it is physically impossible for them to), or life experiences couldn’t push the threshold closer, but in most cases you have much more to live though before I think you could consider yourself to “come of age”.

                In all, as much as I feel that “coming of age” is determined by your own notions of what it means and when in time you feel it applies, I feel that whatever society you belong to also influences this event. For instance, even though the ages of 13, 16, 18, and 21 are arbitrary, society has given those ages some sort of importance. The age 13 is really just a time where the suffix of the number associated changes to –teen, thus making the teenage years. It can be seen as some step closer to adulthood. 16 has, for whatever reason in the United States, been determined to be the time where you are able to get your driver’s license which is seen as a rite of passage. Similarly, 18 is also an age that is seen as a rite of passage towards adulthood. If you think about it, most people consider 21 to be the age at which you become an adult.

                In the end, I feel that “coming of age” is never a set time, but rather a series of events. Not exactly a set series of events, but something that is really influential. Also, even though I’ve just said that you determine when you come of age, with how ingrained those ages and their meanings I mention before, I am quite certain that those also have a sort of determining factor that perhaps you use to measure your coming of age or perhaps others inside your life do.